The Oscar Pistorius Murder Case

Have you heard about this Oscar Pistorius murder case?  

In case you haven't, Pistorius is a Paralympic athlete who made international headlines this summer when he competed in the regular Olympics alongside able-bodied runners.  He didn't medal, but he did make the semi-finals, which is pretty remarkable considering he's a double amputee with no legs below his knees.  

Anyway, he's from South Africa and has been described as the most famous athlete in the country.  On Valentine's Day, he shot his girlfriend while she was locked inside the bathroom in their house, and was subsequently arrested and charged with murder.

The police have said that Pistorius and his girlfriend got into a fight in the middle of the night, she went and locked herself in the bathroom, he then put on his prosthetic legs, got his gun, and went to the door and fired four shots, three of which hit and killed her.  How do they know the couple was fighting?  Several witnesses said they heard the sounds of an argument, saw the lights on in the bedroom, then heard the gunshots and a woman's scream.

Sounds pretty straightforward.

Pistorius, however, claims that he shot her on accident because he thought she was an intruder.  He says they were both in bed sleeping and there never was any argument.  He says, instead, that he woke up in the middle of the night and went to the balcony of the bedroom to bring a fan inside and to shut the door (which had evidently been left open to the night air).

When he came back into the bedroom, he heard someone in the bathroom and jumped to the immediate conclusion that it was an intruder.  He said workmen had been working on the house and had left their ladders outside, so he feared someone had climbed into the bathroom that way.

Without putting on his prosthetic legs, he grabbed his gun and went to the bathroom on his stumps, "screaming" for the intruder to leave and for his girlfriend to call the police (he believed she was still in bed).  When he got to the bathroom, he saw the bathroom window open and realized the intruder was inside the toilet room, which was inside the bathroom with its own door.  He could hear the intruder moving around in there.  

At this point, he fired shots at the door and screamed again for his girlfriend to call the police.  When she didn't respond, he went back into the bedroom to wake her up.  The lights were still off.  When he realized she wasn't in bed, it "dawned on" him that it might have been her in the bathroom.  Finding the bathroom door locked, he knocked it open with a cricket bat and found his girlfriend slumped over the toilet, dying from her wounds.

He has stated that he now believes his girlfriend got up and went into the bathroom while he was outside getting the fan on the balcony.  At the time, he says, he did not realize she wasn't still in the bed, and he points to the fact that the lights were off in the room to back this claim up.    

So far, the information in the news is focusing on "inconsistencies" in what the police investigators have been saying about their investigation.  The media, as a whole, seems to be on the side of Pistorius.

However, I find Pistorius's version of events to be remarkable in the extreme, if not downright absurd. It may be true that the police investigation was "botched" as the media outlets have reported, and it may be true that the lead investigator made a very poor showing at the first legal hearing, but I find Pistorius's story to be unbelievable.

To begin with, Pistorius said himself that he kept his gun by his bed, and that's where he went to retrieve it after realizing someone was in the bathroom.  The investigators found the empty holster lying beneath the left side of the bed - which is undeniably the side Pistorius's girlfriend was sleeping on.  How in the world could Pistorius have gone to her side of the bed to retrieve his gun and not have realized the bed was empty?  

Secondly, Pistorius claims that he was filled with terror and paranoia during this event because he did not have his prosthetic legs on and felt vulnerable.  I can totally understand that, especially considering that South Africa has one of the highest murder rates, and overall crime rates, in the world.  Pistorius, however, lives in a gated community in an upscale area of Pretoria, South Africa, and obviously felt secure enough to not worry about leaving windows, and even balcony doors, open during the night. 

As such, why would a reasonable person wake up in the middle of the night, hear someone in the bathroom, and immediately conclude it was an intruder, rather than a member of the household?  

Even if you did make that assumption, wouldn't you make damned sure you were right before you just started shooting at a shut door?  Would you just start shooting in a wild panic, without actually knowing who was inside, or would you maybe call out first and tell them something like: "Hey, you in there, I've got a gun and I'm going to shoot you if you don't get out!"?  Furthermore, wouldn't you maybe go over to the bed and see if your girlfriend was lying there before assuming an intruder was in the bathroom?  It just doesn't add up.  

I realize it's hard to say with any certainty how a given individual might react in such a situation, but I don't fully understand why a reasonable person would just start shooting at a closed door.  Pistorius did claim, of course, to call out to the person, but he said he did this while he was still in the bedroom, and he said only that he screamed for them to "get out" of his house.  Not everyone (especially in America) thinks there's anything wrong with killing a home invader, but wouldn't a reasonable person at least tell the supposed invader they were going to start shooting, especially if they hadn't even actually seen the invader yet?

Finally, the fact that Pistorius's girlfriend locked the door is a significant clue, in my opinion.  Who gets up in the middle of the night to go pee and shuts and locks the bathroom door behind them?  The fact that she had locked herself in the bathroom is an indication, in my opinion, that she was hiding from Pistorius, probably because he had threatened her following an argument.  

Pistorius has responded to this problem by stating that she must have heard him screaming about an intruder, and therefore locked the door in fear.  That's all fine and good, but it raises more questions than it answers. 

1. If she heard him screaming about an intruder, why didn't she also hear him telling her to call the police (thus implying he thought she was still in bed)? 

2. If she heard him yelling about an intruder and telling the intruder to get out, why didn't it cross her mind that he thought she was the intruder?  Especially after he came into the bathroom?

3. Why didn't she, apparently, make so much as a peep if she believed an intruder was in the house and her boyfriend was in danger?  Clearly she made no sounds because Pistorius would have realized it was her in the bathroom otherwise.  If you thought someone was about to kill you and your boyfriend, wouldn't you be screaming or at least yelling for help?

4. In addition to not making a peep, why didn't she take any apparent steps to help her disabled boyfriend in a confrontation with a potential intruder?  Instead, if what Pistorius said is true, she just locked herself in the bathroom and remained as quiet as a church mouse.  Maybe she was just a cold, selfish bitch, or maybe she was just frozen in terror, but it bears consideration.

Another inconsistency in Pistorius's story is that he claims explicitly that he did not have his prosthetic legs on during this event.  That was, in fact, his justification for becoming so terrorized; he was on his stumps and couldn't flee.  The forensic experts, however, have stated that the height, angle, and trajectory of the shots prove that Pistorius had his prosthetic legs on at the time of the shooting.  He wouldn't have been tall enough, otherwise, to put the bullets through the door at the spots where the holes were found.  

And what about those witnesses who saw lights on (which contradicts Pistorius's story of the room being in darkness) and who heard arguing before the gunshots?  Presumably, Pistorius would refute this by simply saying the witnesses were mistaken about when the lights came on, and suggesting that the "argument" overheard was actually just Pistorius screaming at the intruder and telling his girlfriend to call the police.

In the end, this whole sorry story seems rife with problems on both sides of the aisle.  The police investigation has been inconsistent, but Pistorius's claims are also remarkable to the point of being absurd.  If it actually happened the way Pistorius claims, it's a shame he didn't play the lottery that day, because the sheer magnitude of the coincidental nature of this series of events is staggering.  And when it comes down to a situation like this, the old notion of Occam's Razor is a good measuring stick: the simplest answer is usually right.  Clearly, the simplest answer in this situation is that Pistorius killed his girlfriend in a fit of rage.  Otherwise, you have to connect an unbelievable number of coincidental occurrences to explain how it happened by accident.

I think the case will ultimately come down to whether or not the prosecution cam prove Pistorius had his prosthetic limbs on at the time of the shooting.  If he did, he's guilty.  If not, he might still be guilty, but there probably won't be enough evidence to convict him.

If Pistorius is innocent, this event simply underlines the dangers of keeping firearms in your house to protect yourself against intruders - especially if you tend to be paranoid and jumpy.  Sadly, paranoia is undoubtedly a leading reason why people buy guns for protection in the first place.

It's also worth pointing out that even if Pistorius is telling the truth, in my opinion he is still guilty of something like negligent homicide, because he did something remarkably stupid that caused someone else's death.  Who just starts shooting at a locked door without actually knowing who is behind it, without checking to make sure it's not a family member, or without giving a prior warning?  I don't know if South Africa has any laws like that, but it will be a shame, in my opinion, if Pistorius is cleared of all charges.   

The ObamaPhone and U.S. Welfare

Living, as I do, in an area that can only be described as "conservative," I have heard a lot of comments the last few days from friends and co-workers who are disappointed with the results of the election.  

It seems, around here at least, that one of the most common issues among conservatives relates to welfare.  So I thought I'd make a few points to clear up some confusion.

THE OBAMAPHONE

Have you heard about this?  According to the stories, the Obama administration has created a program intended to provide high-end cell phones to welfare recipients.  The numbers recited are typically something like 16 million people receiving free cell phones.  At work just this evening, I heard someone comment on this phenomenon and lament the fact that a bunch of people who "refuse to work" have "better phones than I do."  

This story has been passed around so much and so frequently that it appears that the vast majority of people familiar with it don't realize that it's all a hoax.  

It's not real.  

It apparently started as a spam email forward (shocking, I know), and then got to YouTube and went viral.  I can tell you with absolute certainty that a significant number of college-educated people who I work with believe that this story, and this program, is real. 

It's not real.  It's made up.  There is no such thing as an ObamaPhone.

Welfare in the United States is a very, very complicated business with numerous different facets.  The very term "Welfare Program" can be misleading, because there is no one, single, overarching government program that establishes welfare.  Instead, it's a combination of numerous federal, state, and local laws that, when taken together, constitute "welfare," or "government assistance" in America.  And it's not even administrated by the federal government; state governments run welfare programs. 

In 1985, a program was added to existing welfare laws to provide assistance to low-income individuals to help pay for their phone bills - phones being a necessary device in modern life and irreplaceable in an emergency.  It is called the Lifeline program.  

Until 2008, it included only land line phones.  That year, during the Bush administration, assistance was expanded to cell phones, due to the decrease in land line usage.  Other than more companies getting permission from the FCC to provide subsidized phones to low-income individuals, no further changes have occurred during the Obama administration.  

Finally, the money that funds this program comes from fees assessed to telecommunications companies.  In other words, your tax dollars do not pay for these government-subsidized phones.  

The simple fact is, this entire story has gone viral simply because it plays on the misguided suppositions and false assumptions that people already have - that welfare recipients are somehow living like kings while the rest of us work our asses off to stay afloat.  In the hospital where I work, we have a lot of low-income patients.  Many of them, in the Emergency Department in particular, come in with cell phones.  So then you hear a story about the ObamaPhone, and all of a sudden it seems to click.  That must be why all these ratty patients come in with fancy cell phones!  The liberals are giving it to them!   

In fact, the whole thing floats on an undercurrent of racism and especially classism.  How else could a poor black person have a nice cell phone?  It couldn't possibly be that maybe they saved their own money to buy it, or maybe their grandmother bought it for them, or maybe they're just not as poor as they look.  It must be a liberal agenda in Washington.

And this leads into a much broader discussion about welfare in general.  Another co-worker of mine, yesterday, told me that she agrees with Romney's infamous "47%" comment.  She feels, basically, that half the country believe they are victims and won't work and rely on the government to take care of them.  I'm sure if pressed, she might agree that it's not really 47% of Americans, but I bet she thinks it's pretty close to that.

In fact, roughly 4.5 million Americans receive welfare in any given month.  By "welfare," I mean actual cash from the government that is given to poor people to help them pay their bills.  In case you aren't good with numbers, that represents roughly 1.5% of the U.S. population.  One-point-five percent.  Nowhere in the same universe as 47%.  Even if you count people who receive food stamps or other government assistance in any given month, it's only about 15%.  

The notion that half the country, or even anywhere remotely close to half the country, is living on government assistance is ridiculous.  

Welfare laws were overhauled in 1996, during the Clinton administration.  It was a bi-partisan overhaul between Clinton (a Democrat) and a Republican-controlled Congress.  Limits were added for how long you can be on welfare (no more than 2 consecutive years, and a 5-year lifetime limit), and a work requirement was added for those on welfare who are capable of working.  As a result, the number of people getting a welfare check every month has decreased by 67% in the last 15 years - from over 12 million in 1997 to the 4.5 million today.  

THE POVERTY LINE

The most recent numbers I have seen in regards to poverty in the U.S. is that roughly 15% of Americans live at, around, or below the the poverty line.  The "poverty line" varies depending on age and family size (for a family with two adults and three children, the poverty line is about $26,000 per year before taxes; for a single adult under the age of 65, it's about $11,000 per year).  

What happens if you put the welfare numbers together with the poverty numbers?  15% of Americans live in poverty.  Only 1.5% of Americans receive a welfare check.  That means that even among poor people, the vast majority are not "on welfare" at any given time.  

It seems that a lot of folks go through life just assuming that all the poor and homeless and disabled they see around them are "living on welfare" (i.e., "living on my hard-earned money!").  That's simply not true.  Most poor people, if they receive anything at all, are getting non-cash assistance (like telephone subsidies, food stamps, and the like).

Of course there are people who take advantage of government assistance programs.  Is it possible that some welfare con-artist is out there receiving a welfare check for a family of eight that doesn't actually exist, and is living fairly comfortably by doing it?  Sure.  But there is absolutely not one shred of evidence to suggest this sort of major fraud is widespread.  The laws themselves have safeguards built in to both detect and prevent fraud.  This is one of the reasons why the number of people receiving welfare checks has decreased by 67% in the last 15 years.  Fewer people are eligible, and there are fewer ways to take advantage of the system.  This is also why the number of people on assistance programs like food stamps is roughly equivalent to the number of people below the poverty line.  If numerous people above the poverty line were simply defrauding the system, it would show in the statistics.  

Suggesting that welfare should be de-funded or in some other way "gutted" by Congress, simply because there are a few people taking advantage of the system, would be akin to suggesting alcohol should be banned because so many people drive drunk.  

The simple fact is that there are not nearly as many people are on welfare as a lot of folks suppose, not nearly as many people "depend on the government" to take care of them as a lot of folks suppose, and the entire welfare system is not nearly as much of a black hole in the federal budget as many folks suppose.  

One final note: In 2010, the amount of federal money spent on welfare checks to poor people amounted to less than 1% of the total federal expenditures - something like 0.7%.  Even if you add in the cost of food stamps and other assistance programs, it's only about 3% of the total federal budget.  

If we can't live in a country where three government dollars out of every one hundred go to help the poor and needy, then we have a serious ethical dilemma on our hands.  

The 2012 Presidential Election: My Prediction

There are exactly two weeks to go before the polls open in the 2012 presidential election.  The primaries are history, the conventions are long since over, the debates are done, and there's nothing left to do but go vote.

Presidential elections are not decided by a popular vote.  Instead, they are decided by an electoral college vote.  Each state gets a set number of electoral votes, based on its population.  In all but two states, electoral votes are given in a "winner-take-all" system; in other words, all the electoral votes in the state go to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the state.  Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral votes into districts, with the popular vote in each district determining who wins that district's electoral vote.

In this year's election, most of the states are already more or less decided.  It's not that those states have already voted, or that those states don't still have individual undecided voters, it's just that the polls in those states show one candidate leading by such a significant margin that the chances of that state going to the other person are slim to none.

These states, then, are basically already locked up for one candidate or the other.  There are 40 of them, and when you add up their electoral votes, you find that Romney currently has 206 probable electoral votes, and Obama has 201 (270 are needed to win.)

That leaves 10 states remaining, where the polls are still very close (within 5 percentage points) and which neither candidate has yet "locked up."  These are the states, then, that will ultimately decide the election.

Those states are: Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida, and Nevada.

Let's look at each of those states individually:

Wisconsin: Obama currently has an average lead of 2.8 points.  That's an average of all state polls taken over the last few weeks.  However, Romney has not led in a single Wisconsin poll since mid-August, when he had a 1-point lead in two polls.  Prior to that, you have to go back to June before you find another Wisconsin poll Romney led in.  So despite the average lead being relatively small, Wisconsin has consistently been in Obama's corner throughout the election season.  Advantage: Obama.

Virginia: When you average all the Virginia polls over the last few weeks, the candidates are in a dead heat.  However, in all the polls taken since Romney's prominent victory in the first debate, Romney has led (albeit by small amounts).  Obama had a comfortable lead in Virginia throughout September, showing as much as an 8-point lead in two different polls during that month.  But clearly the momentum in Virginia is on Romney's side now.  Advantage: Unclear, but leaning Romney.

Florida: Romney currently has an average lead of 1.8 points.  More than a dozen polls have been taken in Florida this month alone, and Romney has led in all but three.  Like Virginia, Obama had a consistent lead throughout September, but Romney has the momentum there now.  Advantage: Romney.

Nevada: Obama has an average lead of 3 points.  Like Wisconsin, Romney's surge in the national polls has not been enough to overcome the comfortable margin Obama has enjoyed there throughout the campaign.  Not as many polls are taken in Nevada as some of the other states, but you have to go all the way back to April to find a Nevada poll won by Romney.  Advantage: Obama.

Colorado: Obama had a consistent lead in Colorado in September, but it has wilted in October.  This month, the candidates have gone back and forth, with Romney currently holding a fractional edge (0.2%) over the last three weeks.  Advantage: Unclear.

Iowa: Obama has tended to lead in Iowa throughout the campaign season, and currently has an average lead of 2 points in the polls of the past week.  As recently as last Wednesday a poll showed him with an 8-point lead.  But other polls have showed the candidates tied.  Even with Romney's post-debate surge, he has won only one of six polls taken since that time - and that was by just 1 point.  Advantage: Obama.

Michigan: Obama's current average lead in Michigan is 5 points, making Michigan just barely a toss-up state at this point.  Romney has not won any polls in Michigan since mid-August.  Advantage: Obama.

Ohio: Over the last ten days, Obama's average lead in Ohio polls is 1.9 points.  Since the first week of September, 31 polls have been taken in Ohio.  Obama has won, or been tied, in all but three of them.  The only three polls he lost were in the first few days after Romney's debate victory in early October, and Romney had only a 1-point lead in each of those three polls.  In the last week alone, Obama has had a lead as high as 5 points in one poll.  Advantage: Obama.

New Hampshire: In the last two weeks, Obama has an average lead of 1 point.  The last poll taken, however was just released today and it shows Obama with a 9-point lead.  However, as recently as just ten days ago, another poll had Romney leading by 4 points.  Obama has tended to lead in New Hampshire throughout the campaign season, but the polls have been unsteady since the debate.  Advantage: Unclear, but leaning Obama.

Pennsylvania: Like Michigan, Pennsylvania is only barely a toss-up at this point, with Obama leading on average by 4.8 points.  His lead in Pennsylvania was simply too large for Romney's post-debate surge to have completely erased.  Romney has not won a single poll in Pennsylvania since February, before the primaries were even finished.  Advantage: Obama.

So what does all this mean?  Well, it means that Obama appears to have weathered Romney's surge since the first debate, and seems on pace to win the election.  Of the ten states left whose electoral votes are still up in the air, the only one that seems very likely to go to Romney is Florida.  We saw that Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire are "unclear."  Let's give them all to Romney.  Even then, Obama still has 277 electoral votes and wins the election.  In fact, we could even throw in Nevada or Iowa, and Obama would still have 271!  So Romney could take 6 of the 10 remaining states, and it would still not be enough to give him the election.  And remember, of the 10 toss-up states, only one is leaning heavily towards Romney.

I see only one way for Romney to win at this point, and that would be if he could manage to steal Ohio. Ohio has polled almost exclusively in favor of Obama all season long, but it has become very close there over the last month.  Obama has maintained a lead, but only just barely.  If Romney won Ohio, plus Virginia and Florida, he would need to win only one more of the remaining seven states - even tiny New Hampshire would be enough to tip him over 270 in that case.  However, it is notable that even if Romney won the windfall states of Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, Obama could still win if he took the remaining 7 toss-ups.

My prediction: Romney will win Florida, Virginia, and Colorado, but lose the rest, giving Obama a 281-257 electoral college victory.  As an alternative, New Hampshire might go to Romney, and Virginia might go to Obama, which would make the final tally 290-248 in favor of Obama.

Romney's only hope lies in winning Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, plus one more of the toss-ups.  I think this is an extremely unlikely scenario, based on the polling evidence.    

Why the Tea Party Has to Go

(Stick with me through the following poll numbers and percentages.  I promise there is a point, but the background has to be set.)  

The 112th Congress is coming to an end.  The term won't officially end until the next Congress begins in January, but most of the bloodletting is done.

In both February and August of this year, Gallup polls found this 112th Congress's approval rating as low as 10%, the lowest ever in Gallup's 38 years of performing this poll.  The previous low was 14%, in 2008 during the 110th Congress and at the height of the worst economic recession since the 1930's.  Prior to 2007, Congressional approval ratings had only fallen below 20% twice - in 1992 and 1979 - both times during a recession.  

Throughout the 1980's and much of the 1990's, Congress's approval rating tended to vary between 20% and 40%.  Following the economic boom of the late 1990's, then the national unity after 9/11, the rates got as high as 84%, then quickly fell back to the traditional range between 20 and 40, with the average being roughly 30%.  A few quick snapshots to illustrate: In December of 2005, it was 29%; in October of 2006 is was 24%; in January of 2007, it was 35%.  

Then the economic recession happened.  That year, in 2008, the numbers began plummeting.  They entered the territory of the teens for the first time in years.  As mentioned above, they got as low as 14% at one point.  

However, in 2009, a new president and a new Congress came into office and the numbers returned to the normal equilibrium around 30%, getting as high as 39% in March of that year.  But the return to normal didn't last.  In 2010, the numbers began to fall into the 20's again, and began hovering in the low-20's and upper teens.  Even with the start of a new Congress in January of 2011 (the current 112th Congress), there was no new enthusiasm seen in the polls and the bad numbers have continued. 

This current Congress has only been at 20% or higher three times and not at all since May of 2011.  As stated above, it has twice rated as low as 10% - the lowest ever.  Its average approval rating in Gallup polls over the last two years has been 15.4% - easily the lowest in Gallup's history.  Compare that to (for instance), the 102nd Congress of 1991-1993 whose average approval rating was 30% (and that was during a mild recession).

So why have this Congress's numbers been so abysmal?  What separates this Congress from the one hundred and eleven that have come before it?  

There are a lot of reasons, of course.  According to a recent editorial in USAToday, which refers to the 112th Congress as the "Do-Nothing Congress" and opines that this Congress is easily the "worst ever" in the modern era, the rise of "rampant partisanship" is clearly the smoking gun, with both Democrats and Republicans "too beholden to special interests" to actually get any legislating done.  That's true of course, and the rise in partisanship can also be blamed, I believe, on the flow and availability of information in the modern world, where we are all inundated with different opinions in a constant stream, and everyone can find a partisan niche to wall up around themselves.  There's never been a time in U.S. history when so much information and so many different perspectives were so available on such a large scale.  Anyone looking for like-minded individuals can find them in the instantaneous click of a mouse, smart phone, or remote control button.

But the fact remains that there have always been partisan divides in this country.  We have functioned under a 2-party system for more than 150 years now, and it would be short-sighted, not to mention completely indefensible, to suggest that our partisan quarrels are somehow worse today than at any other time in the past.  Republicans and Democrats have always fought over ideologies, management and labor have always been at each other's throats, and the Left and the Right have always been avowed enemies.  

So what's different in the last few years?

Enter the Tea Party.

The Tea Party movement seems to have begun around 2008, springing from the 2008 presidential campaign of Texas Republican Ron Paul, a favorite among fiscal conservatives and Libertarians.  Following the recession and subsequent federal bailouts of 2008, as well as the election of Barack Obama in November of that year, the movement really got going.  According to the website of the so-called Tea Party Patriots, the movement found its voice in 2009 "from the reaction of the American people to fiscally irresponsible actions of the federal government."  

Gallup first began tracking support for the Tea Party movement in early 2010.  Since that time, support for the movement has been as low as 21% and as high as 32%, with the average during that span (up through August of 2012) around 27% - or roughly 1 in 4 Americans at any given time.  Percentages for Americans who claim to be "opponents" of the movement are about the same - averaging around 25%.

What this means, of course, is that the Tea Party first became a major political force in 2010, after about a year of formation.  Therefore, the first major federal election that the movement influenced was the 2010 Congressional election - the election that brought in the current low-rated 112th Congress.

In that election, numerous candidates supported by the Tea Party won seats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Earlier that year, motivated by the growing strength of the movement, Michele Bachmann, Representative from Minnesota, formed and became the chair of the congressional Tea Party Caucus.  After the election later that year, the Caucus grew and currently has 66 members in this 112th Congress, making it one of the biggest ideological caucuses in Congress.

In addition to the 66 official members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus, there are numerous other members of Congress who are affiliated with the Tea Party movement, but have chosen not to join the congressional caucus.  Among them are prominent Tea Party favorites like Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio.

The point of all this is to say that our current Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, is heavily populated by active members of the Tea Party movement, or by people closely associated with, and heavily influenced by, the Tea Party. 

The fact that the 112th Congress has, in many ways, been characterized by its takeover by the Tea Party, and the fact that this Congress is among the least effective, and certainly the most unpopular of all Congresses in modern memory (remember the Gallup poll numbers above), can surely be no accident or coincidence.  The first fact is undoubtedly one of the direct results of the second fact.  

I asked above what separates this Congress from the one hundred and eleven that have preceded it.  Partisan and ideological divides have always existed, and we have been living in the Information Age, with information overload, for at least 20 years, so the only difference between this Congress and the ones before it is the Tea Party.  It's the smoking gun.  It's the cause that has led to the effect of an abysmally inoperable Congress, and the most unpopular Congress in modern memory.    

So why has the Tea Party caused this situation?  What is it, exactly, about the Tea Party movement that has led to such a deadlock in Congress, causing it to be so wildly ineffective and widely condemned?

Two words: No Compromise.

This brief phrase has essentially been the rallying cry of the Tea Party movement.  Numerous Tea Party-backed candidates have won election to Congress on this slogan, and have made it the centerpiece of their ideology.  

Richard Mourdock, the current Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from Indiana had this to say on MSNBC following his primary win in May: "I think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view."  

An article in the Tea Party Tribune (a Tea Party news website), dealing with budget issues, was titled "Our Moment: No Compromise. No Surrender. Total Victory."  

On a Tea Party newsletter from Tennessee, the biggest words on the page are simply: "NO COMPROMISE!" 

On Amazon.com, a DVD detailing the history of the Kansas Tea Party says it is produced by "No Compromise Productions."  

In the Oregon Tea Party online store, you can buy a hooded sweatshirt with an image of the cracked Liberty Bell and the slogan "No Compromise."  

As Juan Williams, of Fox News, wrote in May of this year, "The Tea Party's no-compromise ideology has become an accepted part of the political game."  

The fact is, the Tea Party's central political strategy and rallying cry is a refusal to compromise.  It's what makes the Tea Party the Tea Party.  

Can there be any wonder, then, why the 112th Congress has been so ineffective?  When we, as Americans, go to the polls and elect a slew of political leaders who have vowed to never compromise, can we really be surprised when we end up with a deadlocked Congress that gets nothing done?  When we end up getting exactly what we asked for?

When people vote for Tea Party candidates who promise no compromise, what sort of government are they expecting to get?  One that actually works?  In what way is "no compromise" related to the democratic ideals this country was founded on?  The fact is, in a free republic, built on democratic principles, compromise is the only way to get anything accomplished.  And to our great detriment, we have seen the truth of that statement played out over the last two years during this 112th Congress.  No compromise means, effectively, no government.  Is that really what we want as a country?  Maybe it's time to start voting for candidates, Republican or Democrat or any other party, who actually want to compromise, who actually want to move this country forward into the 21st century, instead of imagining a fantasy world where the 18th century lives forever.

And, of course, that's the really ironic thing about the Tea Party movement.  They claim to uphold the ideals of the Founding Fathers, but what they are really upholding are the very ideals that the Founding Fathers fought against and revolted against.  

"No Compromise" is the rallying cry of autocrats and dictators.  

Dictators don't compromise.  In a free society, compromise is what sets us apart from dictatorships.  And the Founding Fathers knew compromise better than any Republican or Democrat alive today.  A simple elementary school review of the drafting of the Constitution makes that abundantly clear.    

If you think Congress is ineffective; if you are tired of the partisan gridlock in Washington; if you are ready to see this country move forward; then you might want ask yourself if the group of "No Compromise" is really who you want to be casting your vote for.  

As long as we continue to elect ideologues who refuse to compromise, we will continue to get exactly what we asked for - a pitifully ineffective, virtually inoperable Congress that only masquerades as a government.  

Chivalry is Dead....And Women Killed It

"Is chivalry dead?"

A rhetorical question posed countless times each day by women disappointed with the actions of some brutish man in their life.

Well, the answer is simple.

Of course it's dead.  And women killed it.

Chivalry is a notion that dates back to the Middle Ages.  Ironically enough, in the Middle Ages, chivalry wasn't just about men giving women special treatment.  Chivalry was a complete social code for the upper classes, and it dictated behavior in everything from correspondence to tournaments to wars to table manners.  It also, of course, dictated behavior in interpersonal relationships among both sexes.  The notion was born from the knighthood institution, and was based on concepts of honor and virtue, and the belief that honorable knights should be devoted to protecting the defenseless - which would have included not just women, but also children, the sick, and the elderly.

In this day and age, of course, when people talk about chivalry, they aren't talking about any of that happy crap; they're just talking about men treating women like princesses.

The whole idea of this special treatment for women goes back to a pre-modern time when women were essentially second-class citizens.  In the United States, women weren't even allowed to vote until 1920, much less hold political offices or any other prominent position of power.  Women belonged to their fathers until they got married, at which time they essentially became the property of their husbands.  Only if a woman became a widow was she ever likely to own land.  Generally speaking, women were expected to pop out babies, take care of the house, and cook meals.  Other than house work, it was extremely uncommon for a woman to have an actual job or profession.

So this is where modern notions of chivalry come from - the idea that men need to protect women, because men rule the world and women are weak, second-class citizens who basically belong to either their father or their husband.  It is the exact same notion that tells us parents are supposed to care for and protect their children.  Children are weak and defenseless and need tender care.  In the same way, a man's wife was like his child, and it was his responsibility to protect her and nurture her.

I don't need to give a detailed explanation about how that sort of social situation no longer exists in our modern country.  Today women have all the same rights, expectations, and privileges as men.  They own property, have careers, make decisions, manage people - all the things that used to be the exclusive purview of men.

And why do they have all those rights?  Quite obviously, because they insisted on it.  Women spent nearly a century fighting for equal rights with men, from the suffragettes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to Rosie the Riveter, to countless pieces of legislation guaranteeing equal treatment for women under the law.  While this was happening, women also began "liberating" themselves and becoming outspoken politically, socially, culturally, and sexually.

The result is that today, women and men have the same social and legal rights, privileges, and expectations.

And the other result, of course, is that chivalry is dead.

In fighting for, and gaining, equal rights with men, women killed chivalry.  Its death was collateral damage in the war for equal rights.  Equal rights between men and women, and chivalry, cannot coexist.  Chivalry existed because women didn't have equal rights with men.  Once they gained those rights, chivalry was forced into the grave of history.

Now I'm not saying that women shouldn't have equal rights.  I'm all about women's rights in every conceivable way.  What I am saying is that women need to STFU about chivalry, because unless they want to return to the days when they were second-class citizens, chivalry is well and truly dead.  Some women, it seems, want to have it both ways; they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Sorry, ladies.  Chivalry is dead.  You killed it.  And you can't have it back.

America's Language

Today, I saw a bumper sticker depicting a snarling, finger-pointing Uncle Sam, with the caption: "If you can't speak English, get the HELL out of America!"  Ironically enough, the vehicle this was plastered on was a Suzuki hatchback.

(RantOn)

There is no official language of the United States.  According to the most recent census data, nearly 20% of American citizens speak some language other than English as their primary language.  That's about 1 in 5, and that only refers to citizens of the U.S. - not immigrants.  No less than 20 different languages (including English) have at least 250,000 native speakers in the United States.  English never has been, and never will be, the only language spoken by Americans, no matter how badly ignorant xenophobes want it to be otherwise.

The fact is, in the United States today, there is virtually no one who doesn't have an ancestor somewhere in their family tree who didn't arrive in this country unable to speak English.  Even families like mine, who have mostly British Isles extraction, almost always have non-English speaking ancestry in some branch somewhere.  So rather than pointing your finger and lamenting about all the people who don't speak English, just thank your lucky stars that your family arrived here long enough before you were born that you never had to worry about learning a new language.

There's a reason that the U.S. Constitution doesn't include any wording about English, or any other language, being the official language of the United States - it's because the United States was founded on the principle of the melting pot, open to anyone who wants to come here and live and work and be a productive member of society.  Multi-lingualism has been part and parcel of the American way since before Day 1.  Martin Van Buren, our nation's eighth president, was not only the very first American president born a U.S. citizen (that is, born in America after the Revolutionary War), but he was also a native Dutch speaker who spoke English as a second language, and with a heavy Dutch accent, until the day he died.  And guess what?  Nobody gave a damn.

In the modern world, the only countries that legally name just one official language are island nations, military and Communist dictatorships, and Muslim theocracies.  Want to join that crowd, O patriotic Lover of Freedom?

On any given day, when you encounter people who don't speak English, or don't speak it well, in 9 out of 10 cases, you are encountering people who have probably not been in this country for very long.  The fact is, 96% of Americans, regardless of what their native language is, say they speak and understand English "well" or "very well."  Give newcomers a chance to learn the damn language before you go around getting your unwashed, skid-marked panties in a wad.

In numerous regional areas in the United States, English is a second language.  This includes huge swaths of places like Louisiana and Texas, among others.  If you're so concerned about what languages people are speaking, why don't you march your pretentious little ass down into the bayous of the Creole country, or the drug-smuggling cities of the Chicano regions, and preach about it to some of the passers-by.  I'm sure they'd LOVE to hear your opinions.

Numerous immigrants come to this country every year, and the vast majority of them are hardworking, diligent individuals whose industry is a enormous economic boon to the cities and counties and states they are working in.  Many of those people go on to become active citizens of the United States.  Others work for a few years and then return home.  In any case, scores of those same people work tirelessly to learn English, while also raising families and working, in many cases, 15 or 18 hours a day.

So instead of sitting there on your NASCAR-watching, fat American ass, too goddamn lazy to press "1" on your touch-tone phone, and criticizing people who make up a vital segment of this population, why don't you instead just give a simple thank-you to those folks who make your life a little bit better?  Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

(RantOff)

(Sorry, I segued into a line from A Few Good Men there at the end.  But it somehow seemed appropriate.)

Christian Opposition to Gay Marriage: A Theological Argument

Read Part I - Christian Opposition to Gay Marriage: A Constitutional Argument

In this first part of this two-part series, we looked at how religious opposition to gay marriage goes against the principles of liberty and secular government, outlined in the Constitution.  It's not that religious people don't have a right to voice their opinion or to be opposed to something they view as sinful; but when religious opinions dictate legislation (as with recent gay marriage laws), the Constitution and civil liberties are thrown out the window.

In that first part, we saw how some modern political groups - most notably the Tea Party - claim to uphold the Constitution and to be rigorous defenders of Constitutional rights, but many of those same Tea Party groups are vocally opposed to gay marriage rights on religious grounds.  I stated that this is but one way in which many gay  marriage opponents are hypocritical.

The other way, of course, is within Christianity itself.  

Most people seem to think the question of gay marriage in general, and homosexuality in particular, is a "no-brainer" as far as the Bible is concerned.  The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality and homosexual relationships, so any self-respecting Christian should be opposed to it.  In this regard, a Christian friend of mine, who is a minister, stated: "Scripture is clear.  Homosexuality is wrong.  There is no gray area."  In another place, he stated: "I can't just accept the parts about God's love and mercy and forgiveness, and skip over the parts about His holiness and judgement."  In other words, he can't just pick the nice parts, and ignore the difficult parts.  For this reason, he says, "I can't justify [a homosexual lifestyle] with a holy God who calls it a sin."

This "Pick and Choose" argument, as I call it, is one of the most common arguments that Christians use when discussing hot-button topics facing modern society.  I have heard it used in discussions on everything from gay marriage and homosexuality, to abortion, gender roles, and whether or not Jesus is the only viable means of salvation.  Indeed, this argument may be the most commonly used weapon evangelicals wield against "moderate" and "liberal" Christians who they see as watering down the Holy Word.

The problem with this argument, of course, is that there is no such thing as a Christian who does not pick and choose what they like from the Bible and discard or ignore the rest.  Even the most stringent Bible literalist doesn't actually believe everything the Bible says, and doesn't actually follow all of the Bible's teachings.  More on this in a bit.

First, I want to briefly discuss what the Bible does actually say about homosexuality.  I have written extensively on this topic in the past, so if any reader wants more information, they can find it here: Homosexuality and the New Testament.

To put it simply, the Bible has very little to say on homosexuality - but it seems like it says a lot more.  The Torah codifies homosexuality as a sin punishable by death (Leviticus 20:13).  Other passages in the Torah also condemn homosexuality as detestable to God.  In still other parts of the Old Testament, homosexuals are either put to death or expelled from the Jewish kingdom (for instance, 1 Kings 15:12).

There is a two-fold problem here, however.  First of all, anytime critics of Christianity point out all the absurd, and sometimes even downright horrific, rules of the Old Testament, Christians will defend themselves by pointing out that the Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament, and so the rules and regulations of the Old Testament are no longer valid.  Jesus did away with them.  If that's true, of course, it also applies to the Old Testament rules and regulations about homosexuality.  After all, many modern Christians may think homosexuality is a sin, but they don't advocate the death penalty for it.  So for Christians, using Old Testament passages to condemn homosexuality is theologically inconsistent.  Those rules aren't in place anymore, having been "fulfilled" by Jesus.

Secondly, and most importantly, the Old Testament doesn't actually say nearly as much about homosexuality as it appears.  In fact, outside of those outdated Torah rules about putting gay people to death, the Old Testament doesn't ever refer to homosexuality.  In all the many passages that have long been understood as referring to homosexuality, the Hebrew word used there doesn't mean "homosexual" at all, but instead refers explicitly to a temple prostitute.  In the ancient world, fertility cults were extremely common, and part of the way these cults worshipped included ritual sex acts, involving both men and women.  In the Old Testament, when kings are shown expelling "homosexuals" or "sodomites" from their kingdom, the text is actually referring to pagan fertility cults being disbanded.  This is so widely recognized today that even the widely-read NIV and the New King James Version have translated the word as "male temple prostitutes" instead of the traditional King James word "sodomites."

At this point, you might be asking, "But what about the New Testament?"

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament only seems to say a lot about homosexuality.  Famous passages in both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy use a Greek word that has been translated as "homosexual" or "homosexual offenders" (or the classic King James phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind"), but linguists and scholars today understand that this word's meaning is basically unknown.  It is never attested in any Greek text prior to Paul's usage of it in 1 Corinthians, and it simply isn't clear what he was referring to - it has even been suggested that Paul coined the word himself.  There were, in fact, several widely-used words in ancient Greek that referred to homosexuality - "pedophilia," which referred to men having sex with boys, and "kinaidos," which basically referred to the size of one's rectum.  Whatever Paul's word meant, there simply isn't any reason to assume it meant "gay men."  In my own study of the issue, I think the most appropriate translation of the word is "pimp" - that is, someone who benefits monetarily from sex.  The link I provided above goes into a lot more detail about this issue.

In any case, we are left, in the New Testament, with just one passage that definitely talks about homosexuality, and that is a text found in Romans 1, where Paul laments men and women who give up natural relations in order to have sex with people of the same gender.  But here, as in the Old Testament passages, this reference to homosexuality is related to ritual sex in pagan temples.  The context of the passage makes that crystal clear, and Paul almost certainly had an eye on the Old Testament passages we saw above that talk about ancient Jewish kings expelling fertility cults from the land.  And remember, Paul was writing to the Christians in Rome, where fertility cults were commonplace.  He was encouraging them not to be led astray by these false gods, which were "man-made things" made to look like birds and reptiles (think of the animal gods of ancient Egypt).

With all these issues in mind, is it actually true that the Bible is crystal clear on the issue of homosexuality, as asserted by my minister friend?  Or are the waters much, much murkier?  In fact, I think the waters are unquestionably murky.  About the only thing we can say with confidence is that the Bible clearly condemns pagan fertility cults and those who take part in them.  Just about everything else is debatable.

As such, should Christians be attempting to legislate morality on an issue that is not even particularly clear in the Bible?  Shouldn't Christians be more concerned with issues that are, in fact, clear in the Bible, like feeding the poor, helping the sick, and living a lifestyle of unrestrained love and mercy?

Of course, I think the answer to that first question is no, and to the second question yes, but my theological argument goes even farther than that. I want to turn now to the "Pick and Choose" phenomenon I mentioned above.

As I explained, one of the first arguments sophisticated Christians make when confronted with social issues is that a Christian can't just pick and choose what they want to believe.  You have to accept the whole deal; you can't just follow some things, and reject the others.  This is sometimes referred to as "buffet-style Christianity," taking what you want and ignoring the rest.

And this is where the real hypocrisy comes into play in regards to Christians who are opposed to gay marriage on Biblical grounds.  Let's agree for a moment that the Bible actually is crystal clear on the issue of homosexuality.  Let's agree that homosexuality is an unquestionable sin and should be condemned.

Of all the sins and unrighteous ways of living outlined in the Bible, why is this one so important?  Not just so important that Christians need to voice their opinion about the sinfulness of the gay lifestyle, but so important that they actually need to amend their state constitutions - and maybe even the U.S. constitution - in order to deny gay people the right to get married?  Why this sin, and not something else?

In 1 Corinthians, there is a passage that is very frequently referred to by people arguing against gay marriage.  This is one of the passages I noted above where the meaning of the word used is unclear and probably did not refer to homosexuality.  But, as above, let's agree for a moment that it does refer to homosexuals.  In that passage, Paul is imploring his audience to live righteous lives and to flee from immorality.  He lists several sins which will keep believers from "inheriting the kingdom of God."  Among these are sexual immorality, drunkenness, greed, idolatry, adultery, and homosexuality.  Why is homosexuality the most important thing in that list?  Why not focus on greed, or drunkenness?  Why not re-enact the 18th Amendment and put Prohibition back in place?  Why not amend the constitution to outlaw sex outside of marriage?

The fact is, there is no legitimate justification for putting homosexuality above the others.  There is no Biblical justification for denying gays the same rights as everyone else, even if you think it's a sin.  You may think sex outside of marriage is a sin too, but you sure aren't trying to keep those who have had premarital sex from being able to get married!

And the biggest one here, of course, is adultery.  If you judge a sin's importance by how often it is referred to or condemned in the Bible, adultery is probably the Number One Biblical Sin.

And just what is adultery, by the Bible's definition?  Quite simply, adultery is when a married person has sex with someone other than their spouse, or when a non-married person has sex with someone who is married to someone else.  At its core, adultery is about infidelity and unfaithfulness.  This is why, throughout the Bible, "adultery" is used as a metaphor for unfaithfulness to God.

In the Gospels, Jesus speaks about adultery on several occasions.  In fact, Jesus uses the word "adultery" no less than fourteen times.  One of his teachings, which is repeated in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, dealt with adultery and divorce.  Here, Jesus states that even looking lustfully at someone who is not your spouse is the same as adultery.  He goes on to say that Moses was wrong in allowing people to get divorced for any reason.  In fact, he argues, if you get divorced for any reason other than infidelity, and then get remarried, you are committing adultery.

This passage, of course, has been the basis for many rules and regulations within modern churches about divorced people.  I grew up being taught that getting divorced for any reason other than unfaithfulness was a sin, and so was remarriage after such a divorce.  I also grew up in a church that did not allow divorced people to have leadership roles like minister or deacon; many modern churches still have rules like that.  If a divorced person wants to remarry, some churches won't allow them to have the ceremony in their church, and some ministers won't marry anyone who has been divorced.      

So with this in mind, and considering that adultery is essentially the biggest sin in the Bible, why aren't Christians fighting to ban divorced people from getting remarried?  Why aren't they arguing that such marriages harm the sanctity of marriage, as ordained by God?  Why aren't they pointing out that divorced people who get remarried are living a sinful lifestyle of adultery?

Scripture is clear.  Remarriage after divorce is wrong.  There is no gray area.

I hope you get my point here.  Christian opposition to gay marriage is inconsistent with the way Christians react to other teachings in the Bible.  I don't know any Christians who are fighting to amend a state constitution to ban divorced people from getting remarried.  I don't know any Christians who would disallow a divorced-and-remarried person to  be an active and accepted member of their church community.  I don't know any Christians who are "hung up" on people getting divorced and remarried.

And yet there are millions of Christians out there trying to ban gay marriage, ostracizing unrepentant gay people from their churches, trying "cure" gay people of their sins, and who are, in general, definitely "hung up" on gay rights.

And these same people, of course, will turn around and accuse a gay rights Christian of "picking and choosing" what they believe, while ignoring the fact that virtually no Christian believes it's a sin for a woman to have short hair, or a man to have long hair (1 Corinthians 11), virtually no Christian believes a woman should not be permitted to have authority over a man (1 Timothy 2), and virtually no Christian believes that slaves should be content in their way of life and faithfully obey their masters (1 Corinthians 7; Ephesians 6).

The Pick and Choose argument, in the end, is just a lot of hypocritical smoke and mirrors to justify prejudice against gay people, and legislating discrimination based on that prejudice.  It is an inconsistent argument that makes false assumptions about what the Bible actually says about homosexuality, and presupposes that "good" Christians follow everything the Bible teaches, even though that is demonstrably not true.

In the end, opposition to gay marriage is not about religion at all.  It's about the fact that many people are simply uncomfortable with gay people, afraid of gay lifestyles, and generally find the whole issue of homosexuality distasteful.  Many of those people then simply open their Bibles to find ways to justify their prejudice.  It's a method of operation that has been going on in Christian society for many hundreds of years.  700 years ago, Christians used the Bible to persecute Jews and other non-Christians.  500 years ago, Christians used the Bible to condemn Galileo.  200 years ago, Christians used the Bible to support and condone the institution of slavery.  100 years ago, Christians used the Bible to deny equal rights for women.  And today, they are using the Bible to justify discrimination against gay people.

Fortunately, history shows that they will lose this argument as they have lost all the others.  Fifty years from now, no one will have a problem with gay marriage, except for a few nutty people on the fringes of mainstream religion.  Gay people are going to win their rights to get married, and it will eventually happen in every state.  Christians today who are opposed to gay marriage will either die out or will reluctantly give in to the changing times and the irresistible force of progress, just as they did with slavery and women's rights.  In the future, the fact that there was so much opposition to gay marriage will be an embarrassment to self-respecting Americans.            

That, at least, gives me some hope.








 

Arguing Gay Marriage Rights

With North Carolina's passage of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, passions have run very high very fast, and I am certainly among those who has been fairly vocal and public in my opposition to this amendment.  I have probably said too much; have probably argued too forcefully.

A friend of mine who pastors a church in Indiana made a blog post calling for calmer heads and more respectful discussions.  He ended by using the example of Jesus, who, he says, always debated respectfully with the Pharisees.  I appreciate his thoughts and I think his post is worth reading.

However, I ultimately didn't agree completely with him.  Some issues require passion.  Some issues even require anger and calling people to the carpet.  Sometimes, that's the only way you can get people to listen.  Without putting too fine a point on it, we certainly don't look back now at the 1960's and suggest that African-Americans shouldn't have been so angry.  Their anger fueled social change.

Anyway, in order to explain my perspective on this, and to explain why I am so vocal on this issue, I thought it might be worthwhile to post my response to him here on my own blog, where my own readers can see it.  Of course, you can also just follow the link above, read the original post, and also read my response.  

------

On many subjects, there are opinions, beliefs, and perspectives that are equally valid. Should the government cut taxes or raise taxes to spur the economy? Which is better and why, Papa John’s or Pizza Hut? What’s the best play in sports, the Grand Slam or the Triple Double? Is the Gospel of Thomas a mid-1st century, or a mid-2nd century text? What killed the dinosaurs, a cosmic disaster or a climatic disaster?

These are all questions that have valid arguments on both sides.

But not ALL subjects are like that. Should women be allowed to vote, or not? Should slavery be legal or illegal? Should we mandate jury trials in all criminal cases, or should we be allowed to convict people without a trial? Should we have religious freedom, or should the government tell us what we can and can’t believe?

On issues like that, there is only one perspective that has any real validity or legitimacy, and if someone argues against it, they certainly have the RIGHT to their perspective, but that doesn’t mean their perspective deserves any respect, or that their perspective has any legitimacy.

For me, the issue of gay marriage falls into the latter category. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. But that doesn’t mean it has any legitimacy or deserves respect.

So while I agree that we should approach this topic with humility, that doesn’t mean that there is no right and wrong. That doesn’t mean that both perspectives are equally just and equally valid. Just as there was a right and wrong over the issue of slavery, and later of civil rights, there is also a right and wrong about gay marriage. And sometimes, you have to get angry in order for people to wake up.

And this, actually, is reflected in the gospel accounts of Jesus, which leads to another point about what you said….you say Jesus debated with the experts of the Law, but always respected them. There may be much lost in translation, but it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus didn’t just “debate” with the experts of the Law, but got into heated debates with them, and even downright angry arguments.

Matthew 23 is a great example. Jesus starts off by basically mocking and degrading the “teachers of the Law and the pharisees” and going into a long exposition about what incredibly unreasonable and enormous hypocrites they are. Then he goes on to deliver the so-called “Seven Woes” wherein he basically calls these people a bunch of nasty, dirty names, condemns them to hell, and states that all the “righteous blood shed on earth” is squarely on their heads.

There is nothing kind, conciliatory, or respectful in his tone.

Jesus’s clearing of the Temple is another example, especially the version in the Gospel of John where he’s brandishing a whip!

Finally, in Matthew 15, where again Jesus is giving a tongue-lashing to the Pharisees, he seems to have gone so far in what he said that even his disciples seem embarrassed. They approach him afterwards to tell him he “offended” the Pharisees. Jesus is unrepentant and basically says they deserved it, because they are “blind guides,” and he likens them to weeds that will be uprooted by God.

Jesus, clearly, understood that sometimes you can’t “debate” with people. Sometimes, people are just wrong. And sometimes, the only way to get people to wake up is to call them to the carpet.

I believe all of these things pertain to the issue of gay marriage.

Christian Opposition to Gay Marriage: A Constitutional Argument

The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
~ from the U.S. Treaty with Tripoli, 1797

After establishing its independence from Great Britain in the late 1700's, the United States faced one of its very first foreign relations crises: piracy in the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean.  This piracy was based out of the so-called Barbary Coast of North Africa.

Muslim sailors from these North African kingdoms and caliphates were given the legal right to prey on shipping from European, and eventually North American, countries.  The justification for this was essentially a religious one - these western ships were fair game, because they were owned by Christian nations, who were considered the religious enemies of Muslim nations.

In 1785, just two years after the end of the Revolutionary War, two American ships were captured by Barbary Pirates and the men crewing those ships were sold into slavery in North Africa, with ransoms put on their heads.  There was even a rumor during this time that Benjamin Franklin, on a voyage overseas, had been captured, though it was not true.

In any case, the fledgling United States began establishing official diplomatic relations with the various Muslim countries of the Barbary Coast, in an effort to keep their ships safe from Barbary pirates.  As a result, they enacted a series of separate peace treaties with these countries throughout the 1780's and 1790's.  One of these was the Treaty with Tripoli in 1797.

This treaty established friendship between the two nations, and was unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate, and signed by President John Adams.  It is a matter of historical fact that copies of the treaty were given to each senator, and the entire treaty itself was read aloud on the Senate floor, prior to the unanimous vote of ratification.

One of the clauses in this treaty is the now somewhat infamous phrase I quoted above.  It comes from Article 11 of the treaty, and in context, this article argues that because the United States is not an established Christian nation, the Muslim region of Tripolitania had no religious quarrel with the U.S. - thus no reason to prey on U.S. shipping.

There is no question that this phrase from an obscure 200-year-old treaty has been over-emphasized in recent years by those wishing to widen the gap between Church and State.  But there is also no question that this government document, unanimously approved by the United States Senate and signed into law by John Adams, is an inconvenient one to those who wish to argue that the U.S. was founded on "Biblical principles" or is a "Christian nation."

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the government will not make any laws "respecting an establishment of religion."  This phrase is clearly referring to state-sponsored religious institutions, with a strong eye towards the Church of England, which the King of England controlled.

This amendment, however, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include a lot more than simply outlawing government-sponsored religions.  Instead, judicial rulings for more than 200 years have established this amendment as effectively separating Church and State, and thus keeping religion out of government.  Many people have differing opinions about this, but the Supreme Court has the constitutional mandate, and the constitutional authority, to interpret the Constitution, and that means their opinion is the final say on the matter.  It is worth noting that virtually every incarnation of the Supreme Court over the last 200 years, both liberal and conservative, has agreed on this issue - the First Amendment irrevocably separates Church and State.

This separation of Church and State is one of the hallmarks of the United States, and one of the most important and enduring legacies of our nation.  Because of it, any American can worship as they choose, or not worship at all.  Any religious organization can build structures and meet there peaceably.  Religious organizations do not have to pay taxes to either the state or federal government, and their rules and regulations do not have to meet with any approval of government officials.  While they must still remain in compliance with criminal laws, they have no obligation to meet the requirements of civil laws passed by the government.  Every citizen of the United States, regardless of their religious or political stripes, benefits enormously from this very important and distinctive American tradition.

You may now be asking yourself: What does a 200-year-old treaty on piracy and the U.S. Constitution really have to do with the 21st century issue of gay marriage?

Quite a bit, as it turns out.

The Treaty of Tripoli shows that our earliest leaders viewed the United States government as a secular entity.  The United States was not "founded on the Christian religion," nor could the United States pass laws establishing religious principles as legal precedents.  That does not mean government officials can't be members of a religion, nor does it mean that U.S. officials can't use their religious beliefs as a way of influencing their own governing.  What it does mean, however, is that religious principles cannot be legislated - at least not if we want our laws to be constitutional.

Enter gay marriage.  From my experience, both in speaking with individuals personally, and in reading numerous sources, the overarching opposition to gay marriage is a religious one.  Of course there are other reasons given too, most notably issues surrounding traditional gender roles and family values, and slippery slope arguments about how gay marriage will lead to an "anything goes" perspective on the institution of marriage, including polygamy, incest, and zoophilia (sex with animals).  As the argument goes, if two men can get married, why not a man and a goat?

But in my experience, all these other arguments are secondary.  They are the "justification" arguments - and not very good ones, at that.  But the real source of the opposition to gay marriage is a religious one.  The other arguments simply attempt to deflect that fact.  I'm sure there are atheist/agnostic/non-religious people out there who are opposed to gay marriage, but I don't really know any.  The far and away vast majority of opposition to gay marriage is coming from people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage.  I am certain this is an undeniable fact, and if you don't agree with me, then consider these statistics:

In 2010, a Gallup poll found that among those people who said that religion was "very important" in their lives, 70% opposed gay marriage.  On the flip side, among those who said that religion was "not important" in their lives, the numbers were basically a mirror image - 70% supported gay marriage.  Similarly, among the four geographic regions of the U.S. - North, South, Midwest, and West, the most religious region, the South, also had the lowest support for gay marriage, at about 35%.

In 2011, a Pew Research Center poll found that among white evangelicals, 74% opposed gay marriage.  In that same poll, only 20% of people with no religious affiliation opposed gay marriage.

Clearly, the overwhelming majority of opposition to gay marriage - indeed, the only real reason why gay marriage is not already legal everywhere - is because of religious opposition to it.  Without religious opposition, there would be few people in the United States opposed to gay marriage.

I hope by now you see my point: it is unconstitutional in the United States for religious beliefs to form the basis of legislation.  If my Christian beliefs tell me that gay marriage is a sin, that fact can have no bearing, legally, on whether gay marriage is legalized or not.  This is why we have no laws banning sex before marriage, mandating baptism, or banning women from leadership roles over men (all of which are religious beliefs).

The separation of Church and State works both ways: the government can't pass laws regulating religious beliefs or practices, and religious beliefs and practices cannot be legislated and mandated.  This is why it is illegal for religious organizations to be involved in politics - they are separate from the government, they don't pay taxes, so they can't have an official voice in government.  Of course, free speech still permits them to express their views, but their religious views cannot form the basis of legislation.

And yet, many of the same people who bark about fidelity to the Constitution are the very same people who believe their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality should be legislated and made applicable to all Americans.

Consider the mission statement provided on the homepage of a group called Tea Party Nation:

Tea Party Nation is a user-driven
 group of like-minded people who desire our God-given individual
 freedoms written out by the Founding Fathers. We believe in Limited 
Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure 
Borders and our Country.

This same Tea Party Nation has stated that gay marriage "will become one more factor in the destruction of America."

This constitutional inconsistency is just one of the ways in which hypocrisy creeps into the discussion about gay marriage.

In the second part, Christian Opposition to Gay Marriage: A Theological Argument, I will look specifically at Christianity and the Bible, and how Christian opposition to gay marriage is not only constitutionally irrelevant, but theologically inconsistent.