Senator Obama's thoughtful and honest expression of his supernatural beliefs can only help since such things seem to be really meaningful to contemporary (2008!) American voters. Regardless of the motivation for our actions, I hope we can all agree to move forward and work for the benefit of others. Obama is far more generationally well-positioned to do this than Senator McCain. Onward to the future!

Let's see, Obama wants to prove he can compete for evangelicals. But he has absolutely no interest in competing for much of the traditional Democratic base (half of which is happily coexisting here under the bus). Interesting. To say the least.

Obama would have a chance of working with an audience like Saddleback if evangelicals in particular and "christians" in general were really followers of the teachings of Jesus. Their relationship with Jesus is more of an "I'm better than you" bumper sticker that in most cases justifies a sense of superiority, a tendency toward clannishness. Thus simplistic appeals to xenophobia and greed (bomb the foreigners, lower taxes!) like those of Bush and McCain work so well with this group -- where someone like Obama, who sounds like he actually expects them to make sacrifices Jesus might approve of, to open their hearts (and wallets) to the less fortunate among us, no they don't like that. He's too nuanced. He doesn't sound "tough" enough.

If Jesus came back to earth and gained any measure of political power through the strength and wisdom of his teachings, the Christian Right would string him up all over again.

Barack Obama audaciously and arrogantly promises to violate his oath of office. He has consistently made it abundantly clear that RELIGION (that is, his self-righteous version of it) is the ONLY reason he would deny an entire class of his fellow Americans the ‘fundamental’ civil right of secular marriage. This so-called ‘civil rights lawyer’ has never once stated even one legal reason why he would deny this minority the same civil rights he reserves to his own class of citizens and to the exclusion of others.

The promise and intent to deny civil rights in the name of religion is a violation of Oath of Office that should disqualify any person from holding public office in America. Unlike the Founding Fathers who swore on the Bible to uphold the Constitution Barack Obama (and politicians of his ilk) foreswears the Constitution to uphold his notion of the Bible. This may be Christian but it is clearly un-American.

Ecrasez l'infame!!

Are you done masterbating now? It's nice to see that lefties continue to engage in civil discourse.

When you talk about ”...the ‘fundamental’ civil right of SECULAR marriage...” I feel I need to know more about this right. I'm not even going to get into what "fundamental" means. I want to be more practical than that.

I hope you'll concede that the institution of marriage has, along the way, accumulated some co-terminology that has historical, habitual cultural meaning and value. Or, if you feel the terminology does NOT have value in today's world, then I hope you'll admit changing it to mean something else, or ignoring it in selected circumstances, involves cranking a big whoop-de-doo into the English language?

I ask because of the terms husband and wife. Let's not pretend those two words are not as stone-set into our lingo as the word marriage itself, okay? They are as much as part of marriage as mother and father are of family; as, at least to a biologist, male and female are of sex; as yin and yang are to the whole of Buddhist existence. Okay, so what’s in a word, you object. And I respond: unless we want to go back to grunting and pointing, everything.

So. In a gay marriage, as opposed to a civil union or SECULAR union – lovely, unbaggaged terms that over time can acquire their own patina of respectability, solidity and beauty – who is the husband and who is the wife? At some point, this must be decided or new terminology has to be created, the old terminology dragged kicking and screaming into retirement. If we’re going to use a perfectly good and unambiguous word -- marriage -- to describe something that for thousands of years it has notdescribed, can we at least define the subsidiary terms accordingly.

I leave it up to you. What do we do with husband and wife?

Over the pond, I've been following this fascinating election keenly. This is one of those instances of an unbridgeable cultural gulf though - the idea of potential leaders taking part in a religiously-sponsored debate in the UK is simply totally unimaginable. Everyone involved would be incredibly embarrassed, and instantly would make themselves a laughing stock in the national press. So it's interesting to see.

What do we do with the terms "husband" and "wife"? People who want to use them use them, them as doesn't don't. Simple as that. 'Even' hetero couples often call each other 'partner' now.

Since "husband" originally had to do with tending livestock, good riddance.

And marriage has had many permutations through the ages. For most of the time it involved ownership and essentially slavery. Time to refurbish it, and extend it to anybody who wants to participate.

If that means (consensual) polygamy (or polyandry), so be it. Not my business. (There's a whole sub-culture of 'polyamory' already...)

It was all the people who are falling prey to the GOP's crypto-racist substitution of "Muslim" for "ni--er".

By going to the exurban megachurch of Saddleback -- which unlike his old church is White-Approved and White-Sanctified -- and showing his Christian faith, even if it's not of the same flavor as Warren's (McCain's sure isn't), he drives a big fat stake in the heart of the Republican-fueled "he's a Muslim terraist!" garbage being strewn about.

The true hardcore racists won't be swayed, but the millions of fencesitters who don't let racism dictate their every more might be.

But what McCain said was AWFUL. He's gonna chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell? HE's gonna him? Excuse me, but McCain will be sitting in a comfy chair while he sends a whole lot of fresh-faced innocents into hell (not to mention or even consider the 'collateral damage' among the locals). And HOW he said things was awful too - pandering to the kind of people who want simple, short (if ridiculous) answers to complex questions, cuz, gosh, THINKING makes their heads hurt...but better some head-hurting now than hurting all over later...

If it was a knock-out, we're all the losers (even those cheering fools in that silly church who think they're winners...even tho they have to struggle to make it on their $250 k per annum).

Christ.