I went to the Green Hills Library tonight with every intention to vote, since it was the last night to vote early. The next opportunity will be Tuesday at my polling place. I walked in, saw the line, followed the line back, back, back… good grief! Back to the back of the library and then around again.
I turned around and walked back out. So much for eliminating the long lines to vote by voting early. I guess I wasn’t early enough.
Tuesday polling place here I come.
This is hilarious. I was watching Nightline just now and they were talking about all the new political ads out, including the Republican ad against Ford.
Bay Buchanan, political pundit, pointed out that Tennessee produced both Al Gore and Bill Frist — Boring. Boring-boring-boring.
"Tennessee likes boring," she said. "Boring wins in Tennessee. And here you have this flamboyant, smooth-talkin’ ladies man. That’s not the image. That’s what that ad does. It made Ford reinforce this image of a dapper man that’s maybe not in touch with the people of Tennessee."
She goes on to say, "Corker is boring. Boring wins."
That’s hilarious! Corker wins because he’s boring!!
Hey wait… we also "produced" Fred Thompson. He’s not boring.
Guess that’s why he’s no longer here…..
Just about the time I get all calmed down and peaceful like, I pick up another paper, or watch yet another news story on how James Dobson, Dick Land or Jerry Sutton want me to be sure to "keep my Christian values in mind" when I go to the polls this November (or this week…). It happened again today.
I sat down at Crest Honda to wait on my baby’s first oil change (that’s "ohl" to you Tennesseans) and as I’m flipping through the latest version of The Scene, I come across an article about Monday night’s dueling rallies for Amendment One. The language quoted from the Two Rivers rally both angered and saddened me.
I realize I am an anomaly in Tennessee. Even more so considering I am, what most statisticians and pollsters would classify an "evangelical/born again/fundamentalist Christian." (why do they lump us all together like that????) –Truthfully, I’m evangelical and born again, but I doubt I’m really a true fundamentalist. But I still end up lumped in with them. Anyway –Current polls show this amendment will pass with between 60% to 70% of the vote. So why am I swimming upstream against my "fellow" born-againer fundies? Well, let me tell you.
First, for those of you outside Tennessee — and those inside who have been living in a cave lo this past year — "1" (or "One"… whatever…) is an amendment to Tennessee’s constitution. Officially called "Tennessee Marriage Amendment", it would limit any recognized marriages in Tennessee to those between a man and a woman. Even if a gay couple has been legally married in another state, Tennessee will not, cannot, recognize it.
I can already hear my some of my friends gasping, exclaiming, "why on earth would you vote no on such a thing, Lu? Don’t you believe in the sanctity of marriage? Don’t you know that God sees same-sex marriage as sin?"
Yes, I do. And, No, I don’t — at least not any more so than same-sex sex/relationship outside of marriage.
Look, I could write a whole post just on my deep conviction that homosexuality is sin, with all the Scriptural references to back it up. It would include my own understanding of how sin, from Adam on, has impacted every aspect and element of creation; including genetics, which can strongly influence a person’s proclivity for same-sex attraction.
But that’s not the point here. And its not the reason why I’m voting NO on this amendment.
There are a couple of facts that need to be stated. First, this amendment is wholly unnecessary. In 1996, a proposition was put on the Tennessee ballot and passed, which effectively banned same-sex marriage in this state. The amendment was proposed after the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in 2003, struck down a similar proposition passed in that state. It is a way of ensuring that ’96 proposition will not be set aside as "unconstitutional".
Second, and obviously connected to the first, the failure of Amendment One would not open wide Tennessee’s doors to the possibility of gay marriage becoming legal in the state. For reasons clearly stated above (1996).
Those are the facts. This amendment is unnecessary. This amendment is redundant.
Here’s the Truth. Passing this amendment will not "save", "protect" or in any way salvage the "sanctity" or "purity" of marriage. It cannot. It is powerless to effect the heart changes necessary to do such a thing. It is not the homosexual community who has ravaged the purity and sanctity, the set-apartness, of marriage. It is the heterosexual community, and dare I say, the "Christian" community, who has done the most damage to the institution of marriage and could ultimately destroy the ideal of it in our culture. It is those who choose mediocrity in their relationship with their spouse over sacrifice and passion, who change marriage partners as often as they change their wardrobe, who value their own comfort and their own needs above those of their spouses and children who destroy its sanctity. And it is those who wield marriage and family as weapons in a "values war" who destroy the purity of the marriage commitment and the sanctity of the marriage vow.
Jerry Sutton, pastor of Two Rivers Baptist Church, claimed at Monday night’s rally that we Christians are at "war against homosexual militants" and "debauchery". How can a pastor of such a large church be so incredibly clueless? No wonder we’re vilified in television shows and ridiculed in comedy clubs. No wonder we’re disliked by so many. We have idiots preaching from our "pulpits".
Even a cursory glance at the Bible brings abundant clarity that Jerry Sutton is flat-out wrong. Perhaps he is waging a personal war against "homosexual militants", but God certainly is not. He never has and He never will.
Paul makes it very clear that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual forces of evil in this world and against every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. (Eph 6:12, 2 Cor 10:4-5). The Message puts it this way:
The tools of our trade aren’t for marketing or manipulation, but they are for demolishing that entire massively corrupt culture. We use our powerful God-tools for smashing warped philosophies, tearing down barriers erected against the truth of God, fitting every loose thought and emotion and impulse into the structure of life shaped by Christ.
Jerry Sutton, rather than demolishing corruption, instead erected a barrier against the truth of God with his statements Monday night. Many others have done the same, all in the name of "preserving," and "protecting" marriage. Jerry Sutton has a warped philosophy and its time we as his sisters and brothers stood up and said, "no more."
Jesus did not rage against homosexuals or "sinners" when He walked this earth. To the contrary, He openly embraced and loved them, fellowshipped with them, and made it clear it was for them that He came, for them He died and for them He conquered death and lives today. So that they may have Life.
Nor did Jesus ever demand that the sinners He fellowshipped with ever live up to laws of Moses given to God’s people. Rather, He loved them just as they were, accepted them just as they were and invited them to follow Him and learn a new, more abundant way to live. He never forced His will or His rules upon them. He is the same today. He does not force His will or His law upon anyone.
The religious zealots, on the other hand, like those of Jerry Sutton, Dick Land and James Dobson, those are the people that Jesus raged against. Them He declared "war" against — overturning tables, calling them hypocrites and snakes. For they were the ones that kept writing more and more rules for everyone to follow, more and more laws for everyone to obey, more and more hoops for a person to jump through in order to be found acceptable to God.
Amendment One will not protect marriage. All it will do is create yet another barrier between those Jesus loves and those of us who claim to follow Him. The gay community is already denied legal rights regarding the care of their own children, their own partners and their own loved ones that even an unmarried heterosexual couple enjoy under the law. Why kick them in the stomach when they’re already down?
I have said it before, the United States is not a "Christian" nation, nor was it ever meant to be. It was created as a safe haven for people of all religions. However, it is a Christianized nation, with a brand of Christianity that is more cultural than Biblical. If we are going to perpetrate Christianity on our country, let it at least be Biblical, with all the love and grace and respect God reveals in His Word.
Forcing nonbelievers to live like they are believers may seem "morally righteous" but, in truth, it’s cruel. They have neither the understanding nor the power of the Holy Spirit with which to overcome the enemy and live in freedom under the standards God sets for us, His followers. God never forces nonbelievers to live by the same standards as His people. Rather, He calls His people to live by standards that would cause the world around us to stand up and take notice, in order that HE might have the glory and honor when His people are able to point to Him as the source of the ability to live by such freedom, grace, hope and love.
That is why I’m voting NO on One.
I received my first official Tennessee Voter Registration Card.
Yeah, I know. I’ve been here two years and I’m just now getting a card?? Well, see… the first year I got an apartment past the registration cut-off. And last year I moved right after the cut-off, and hadn’t gotten a card before then.
But now I have one. So I can now vote for someone other than those two nincompoops I saw last night.
Is there anyone besides those two nincompoops?
These are our choices???
We are soooo in trouble.
Watching the debate in Chattanooga right now and I am very disappointed in both candidates. Neither one knows how to state their platform/views/convictions without pointing out what their opponent has screwed up or lied about.
Corker makes excuses about his delay in firing illegal aliens working for one of his companies. Ford blames "the other guys" for the national debt when he’s been in Washington 10 years. blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. I’d abstain from voting if I thought it would give either one of these bozos a clue that they suck.
… and there’s another thing I dislike about Ford. All this religious crap he spews. He just talked about "the good Lord". I don’t believe all his religious posturing. It comes across far too disingenous; its nothing more pandering to the Bible Belt. And I very much dislike his commercial that he was "forced to go to church" and that he thinks that’s really great. To me, if an adult is saying they were "forced" to go to church, it says they really don’t see that as a blessing, privilege or in any way a good thing.
I could say I was forced to go to church. Technically it is true. But my heart says it wasn’t a "forced" thing. My heart says it was a God thing. A blessing and privilege. In a country where I, even as a child, have the freedom to choose where I worship, when I worship and how I worship.
That commercial of Harold Ford’s says to me that to Ford the church is nothing more than an institution that should be manditory for children to attend, not a community they have the blessing to be involved in. Its like church is the same as brushing one’s teeth. Do we really want a senator serving in our nation’s capital that sees his religion as manditory for all children?
What is wrong with Tennessee? Where are the candidates like Fred Thompson? Candidates with a least a modicum of integrity and political savvy. Not to mention intelligence.
I’m feeling strangely nostalgic for Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. And I really dislike both these women’s politics. But at least they’re intelligent and well-spoken. Even Governor Arnold is better than these two jokes.
And, yes, I voted for him. And would vote for him again were I still living in LA. He doesn’t always do what he says he will — what politician actually does??? — but his basic platform is one I can get behind: fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It’s a strange blend, I realize. One which creates a distinct tension between keeping a tight rein on spending and the need to provide help for the most needy and those in crisis in the state and community. Its a tension I wish more politicians believed in.
Say what you will about California and its crazy politics, but they have better senators than we do right now.
The debate is over now. And I didn’t learn a single thing about these candidates. The only thing I learned is that I desperately do not want to vote for either one of them.
UPDATE 10/11: Volunteer Voters has a great summary of the debate last night. Read it here.
I’m watching Hillary Clinton on Night-line, and I’m surprised that I’m sort of agreeing with her — at least on some points. Which is a total switch for me. Since I first saw her and Tipper "dancing" together on the stage at the 1992 Democratic Convention, I’ve not been a fan of hers. She just seemed so fake and so… I don’t know, pushy?
And I don’t think I can call myself a fan of hers even now. However, I do have to admit, she came off in this interview a lot more calm and sane and even sensible than she has in her "it’s all a right-wing conspiracy" days. No, I haven’t forgotten all the suspicious activity that has surrounded her and her husband throughout their governor years and White House years.
Yet, I cannot escape the fact that I did agree with her that the current administration has not capitalized on the opportunities of strong leadership they had after September 11th. Nor can I escape the feeling that she is right in calling for an overhaul of personnel in the defense/national security departments.
And I cannot escape that fact that as I sat here listening to her speak on definitions of leadership, on what needs to be done in Iraq and on why anyone would want to run for President of The United States (she left out a thirst for power and control) I could actually almost see her as President. If there is a viable woman candidate for the job, it would be her; and I could almost see myself voting for her.
And that is the most shocking thing of all. That I would even consider voting for Hillary is a far, far cry from where I was even a couple of years ago. Not just politically, but intellectually.
It took me until the last year to realize that I’m a lot like the character of Maggie Carpenter (played by Julia Roberts) in "Runaway Bride". Except, instead of not knowing what kind of eggs I like (over easy), I don’t know what I really think about politics or theology, or what I truly believe. I had some ideas, but in the family I grew up in, it didn’t seem to matter what I really thought. It was my older siblings and my dad who had the power. If I didn’t agree with them, I was made to feel stupid, brainless, unthinking. That would have been simple, except for the fact that my father was very conservative, my oldest sister is very liberal and my brother started liberal, but went very conservative over 20 years ago. I felt like a push me-pull you doll. I was damned which ever way I went. Dad’s death didn’t free me from the tug-o-war either. It made it more difficult because I couldn’t just ask him what he thought and decide to go with his conclusions.
Two years of counseling is finally paying off. I’m finally beginning to find my own political voice. And its a voice that is neither liberal or conservative. Yet at the same time is much more liberal than I thought I was. Truthfully, I fall somewhere in the middle. That "centrist" place that is so often condemned by both sides because they think we’re riding the fence. But we’re not. I’m not.
Look, was Saddam a bad man? Yeah, I strongly believe he was. But I knew even back in early 2003 when the build up began that this was going to be a long, protracted unwinnable war. It wasn’t hard to see, in my opinion. But then again, I was living in the region and had a feel for the mood and culture there.
But did we really need to take down Saddam? I don’t know. Right now I want to say, no we really didn’t. But what difference does that really make now? We are there. We’ve done the thing and we must now see it through. To just set an arbitrary date and pull out would be an egregious wrong to the people we’ve liberated from Saddam’s tyranny. Because, while Saddam is gone, there are far too many other tyrants desperate to take his place. And they will, as soon as we leave — or even while we’re still there.
And there in lies the biggest dilemma. We could be there forever. And that is just as wrong as just pulling up stakes and leaving. And this is where I saw Hillary tonight lining up with what I already believe and think. I could see her struggling with this very dilemma and coming to the same conclusions I am.
This is not fence-sitting, as the far-left or far-right would define me. To me, it is unwise to take a hard-line stance on anything, because life just isn’t black-and-white. Whether or not we "should" or "should not" do something depends on the situation at hand. Compassion should always temper the law but justice cannot always take a back seat to mercy and grace. Sometimes, often times, justice will walk hand-in-hand with grace — the "I forgive you" can still be (and usually is) followed by "but it is unwise for me to forget" and "you still have to pay the consequences of your actions".
I find that I more often than not, fall into this moderate category of thinking. Moderate on war, on economics and welfare and jobs, even (gasp) religion/Christianity in American politics. I think age has mellowed my hardliner tendencies — age, and finally finding my own voice, instead of relying on that of my father’s.
I get the sense that age has also mellowed Hillary. She seems to have moved away from her far-left leanings and moved closer to a more moderate view. But is this a real move, or just the ploy of a savvy politician? I still have trust issues where the Clintons are concerned.
The difference between Hillary and I, when it comes to Iraq, is that I am not convinced that the Bush administration lied about the WMDs. I have no problem believing he had them and that he sent them to Syria (or Iran or somewhere else) for "safe keeping". But perhaps they weren’t as advanced as our intelligence was led to believe. Who knows? But I’m pretty convinced that the Bush administration was (and still is) convinced their intel was good and that they acted in good faith on that intel. Hillary seems to think they lied then, and continue to lie now. I don’t think so.
What I see is an administration trapped in a web of bad decisions based on faulty or incomplete intel, with a big blind spot in their intel department. Sometimes you can fully, implicitly trust someone who just isn’t as in-the-know as they think they are.
I love the idea of a woman POTUS. I loved the show "Commander In Chief" because of this. I think it’s an incredibly intriguing idea, and one who’s time has come. I’ve often thought, depressingly at the time, that Hillary had the best chance of this at this point. But tonight, she may have won a voter. She was eloquent, well-spoken, intelligent and calm. Gone were the hysterics and theatrics that so marked what I saw of her during her husband’s presidency. And in their place I found a woman who shared my thinking on several issues.
But is she really trustworthy? Or is this just a very good performance by a studied, professional politician? This jury of one is still out on that one.