Except that our Constitution doesn’t require political candidates to make only claims which can be backed up by reliable data. I don’t think our founders were interested in telling people how to run and/or vote, despite all current claims to that regard by the modern media left.

Nor is this a secular/sacred issue, given that bigotry can exist in the context and company of anything from religion to science to fashion. Suppose an imbecile like Sanitarium decided it was good politics to declare gayness immoral? Would there be a call for politics to stay out of politics?

As ever, there is no single Christian and/or religious take on the morality of gayness, or even regarding whether gayness IS an issue of morality in the first place (I say not). So there’s no reason to label a pro-gay stance as secular. I’m a Christian, and I consider LGBT rights to be sacred–so, by the same in-group logic with which progressive values are declared secular, I could label pro-LGBT attitudes as Christian. Works both ways.

That is to say, if Obama ever did decide to govern from the middle, we’d be much better off, given that what we want of him–taxes on corporations and the rich, universal health care that qualifies as such, jobs, penalties for polluters and job exporters–are things most people say they desire.

Unfortunately, come the election, the only other choice was Too Old and his sidekick, Too Stupid. (With both being Too Republican.) So I voted for Obama. Which, barring some miracle, I’ll have to do all over again next year.

Thoughts?