The Beginning of an Era

What you see when you go to the White House website:

Today we wake up to a new America with a new president. It is an exciting time to be an American and a global citizen. Some people doubt whether we will see change or not, but at the least, we are at a time in history where change is possible. To me, that is hopeful.

Yesterday, I was awakened at 5:00 a.m. by a phone call from a friend in Nepal who wanted to tell us congratulations on our new president. A couple hours later, I saw on television the largest number of people who have ever gathered in our nation's capital. And then I watched, with close friends, the first African-American to be inaugurated into the White House. At least for now, people are united, thirsty for a different America and a different world, and willing to dream about what that might look like. To me, that is hopeful.

Here are some of my favorites from Barack Obama's inauguration speech:
"As the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself, and America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace...

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.

And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it."

I am ready for that type of change.

More on Gay Marriage

Just when you thought I was finally done writing about homosexuality, I am back with more! It's not my fault, it just keeps coming up. These are both good, and I highly recommend you take a little time to partake.

The cover story of Newsweek currently is on gay marriage. I think it is a fabulously written piece that sums up much of what I believe about the topic. It is a bit lengthy, but well worth it:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1

In addition, last night on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart's guest was Mike Huckabee, and they discussed gay marriage at length, which is the topic of this clip. Huckabee opposes gay marriage, and Stewart is trying to understand his position. Another piece that is interesting and well worth your time.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments about these!

An Appropriate Apology

I posted a lot about voting no on Prop. 8 on my blog. Obviously it is something I am very passionate about: embracing the marginalized, giving them equal rights, and showing them love. I do believe in the Bible, and believe that the greater themes that run through it are love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Some people agreed with things I wrote, while others disagreed, but I think that good dialogue came from it, and more dialogue is needed on this issue. For the gay people that I know and love, I voted no on Prop. 8, but it passed. Here is an apology to those whose rights were denied, not created by me, but something that I like. The wording is a bit strong, but I think an apology is appropriate, considering many people were hurt by the actions of the church.

Read more about it here.

Hope for the World

On Tuesday night as I watched Obama give his acceptance speech, with tears in my eyes and goosebumps on my arms, I had never felt more proud to be an American. In our country, after centuries of hate and discrimination that has not fully been overcome yet, Tuesday night was a great milestone. And it’s not just a time of hope for America, but I really feel that it is a time of hope and unity for our world.

Obama put it best: “And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared… tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.”

Pictures of people celebrating Obama’s victory throughout the world (left to right): Basra, Iraq; Jerusalem; Martin Luther King, Jr.'s sister in Atlanta, Georgia; Obama's former school in Indonesia; Barack Obama's step-grandmother Sarah Obama, in Kenya; New Delhi, India; Athens, Greece; Dakar, Senegal; Beijing, China; Denmark; Kenya; outside the White House.



With all of that said, the election results were bittersweet. Prop. 8 passed, placing an amendment to the California Constitution denying the right to marry to homosexuals. My heart broke for the more than 18,000 gay people who were married since June in our state. My heart broke for those who now may not have the chance to. There is so much fear among those who voted yes of what might happen if gay people can get married, and my heart broke for those who are targets of that fear. And lastly, my heart broke greatly because the yes on prop. 8 campaign was largely fought in the name of Christ, and it makes me sad that the Bible and Christianity is still being used to justify discrimination, this time against a group of people who are only trying to express love.

But since I try to be a “glass half full” type of girl, here is a little hope that progress will be made: In 2000, 61% of people who voted were against gay marriage, and in 2008, only 52% were against it. Time will bring acceptance. It already has. And the fact that we will inaugurate our first African-American president come January is a testimony to the truth of that.

No on Prop. 8, Part 4

This post is a continuation of the previous one.

Once again, I am addressing the issue of interpreting the Bible literally, which is a main argument that Christians who are for prop. 8 bring up.

One argument many Christians provide against homosexuality is that it is a choice, and that gay people should change. Well, taking the Bible literally, Jesus says that homosexuality is not a choice, but that gay people are born that way. In Matthew 19:12, Jesus says, “Some are eunuchs because they were born that way.” In ancient times, eunuchs were traditionally the ones who guarded the Queen, as they were not a threat to her because they were either castrated or homosexual. Here, Jesus is saying that some people were born gay. After stating this, Jesus did not immediately go into a rant about how all eunuchs who were born this way must repent and change. He simply makes a statement.

Further, if Christians are for Proposition 8 because of what they think the Bible says, they might want to look further into how the Bible should influence their political decisions. In 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Paul writes, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” So people who are voting yes on Prop. 8 based on the Bible, should definitely not vote for a ticket with Sarah Palin on it according to the Bible.

Lastly, the Bible has been used to justify many forms of discrimination in the past that we now see as wrong. It was used to justify slavery. The President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis, said, “[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.”

Our society today has moved passed the practice of using the literal words of the Bible to discriminate against Africans by using them as slaves, or to discriminate against women. Let us not use the literal words of the Bible to discriminate against homosexuals. And if you choose to interpret every word of the Bible literally, then you may want to look at the verses I have included in my last two posts and wonder what the Bible really does say about homosexuality, and how you decide which verses to take literally.

I believe that a lot of hope can be found within the Bible, and that the God of this world is a God of love. Like I stated in the last post, I see the Bible as a greater story of hope and love for those who are oppressed, poor, sick, and hungry, as Jesus came to question the status quo of an empire that placed value on power and prestige. He challenged those who perpetuated injustice and embraced those who had been discriminated against in society.

Once again, I welcome thoughts and comments, because I know that there are many people who know much more about this than I do.

No on Prop. 8, Part 3

It seems that the debate on gay marriage raises a larger issue within Christianity today, which is the debate about how literally verses within the Bible should be read.

This is something that I struggle with.

I am not convinced that homosexuality is a sin, as many others are, because I see the Bible as a greater story of love and redemption, with Jesus coming to challenge the status quo of an empire that placed value on power and prestige. He came to preach a new message of LOVE and a new type of kingdom where it was easier for the poor and oppressed to be accepted into than those who gained power by perpetuating injustice in the world.

As our understanding of the world has increased, so has our understanding of the Bible.

When Galileo first came up with the Copernican Theory (the earth and other planets revolve around the sun), the Pope told him to abandon it, because it went against the teachings of the Bible. Later, when the theory was proved through scientific study, Christians accepted it and it didn’t undermine their faith in God.

Today, the American Psychological Association, based on in-depth research, calls homosexuality normal, and states that therapy to try to change a person’s sexual orientation reinforces discrimination and stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for these people. This is especially true, it states, for those who have grown up in conservative religious settings. Instead, therapy should focus on helping them cope with prejudices, resolve internal conflict, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Other major medical and scientific organizations agree.

I am not saying we should take the authority of the APA over the authority of the Bible or God, so for those who use Bible verses to defend their views on why homosexuality is wrong, let’s look at the text.

Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13
These verses do condemn homosexual behavior, but verses within Leviticus condemn much more that we no longer follow like putting people to death for cursing their mother or father and death for an adulterer. It also says don’t eat fruit on a newly planted tree until its fifth year, don’t clip your beard, don’t get a tattoo, etc. How literally do we take the Bible here?

Romans 1: 24-28
An excerpt: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.”

Taken literally, these verses are condemning a perversion of homosexuality, not all homosexuality, just like the Bible warns against perversions of heterosexuality. The people discussed in these verses who did not think it was worthwhile to know God were giving into lust, not love. For many people who are homosexual today, they are not giving into unnatural relations, they are merely doing what is natural for them; they are not acting in lust, but in love, and they are not denouncing God, but including him in their lives. Looking at these verses, it is my belief that those who take the Bible literally should accept homosexuality.

There is much more that could be said on this topic, but this is long enough already. More to come… Once again, I welcome any thoughts or concerns.

No on Prop. 8, Part 2

With five days until the election, I will be posting more reasons why I am voting no on 8. I welcome objections to what I write as well as agreements.

I have been really looking into the Yes on 8 website, because I am trying to understand the other side, but I find inaccurate information.

Here is what they write as the “issue” under why people should vote yes on Prop. 8:
“California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, four activist judges based in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, legalizing same-sex marriage.”

Those “four activist judges” are Supreme Court Justices, and three of them were appointed by Republican governors.

The majority opinion that found Proposition 22 as unconstitutional was written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George (appointed by a Republican governor), who felt like this was a civil rights case that should be compared to those that ended laws banning interracial marriage. California was the first state to ban those laws, even though people in the public opposed it.

Chief Justice George said that he was not ignoring voters, but “what you are doing is applying the Constitution, the ultimate expression of the people’s will.”

It is and has been the responsibility of judges to interpret the constitution to protect the rights of people.

Think of times beyond marriage where this has happened in the past.

In Brown vs. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court outlawed segregation in schools. The people in the south clearly did not want that and would have voted against it, but the constitution is in place to protect the rights of those who are denied them.

Voting No on Prop. 8 changes nothing. It keeps our constitution how it is and how it has been. Voting Yes on Prop. 8 adds an amendment that clearly discriminates against a minority group of people by denying them rights.

The Last Debate

Regardless of who you thought won, I think many of us walked away from debate number three with a similar thought: If I hear reference to “Joe the Plumber” one more time…

And then many of us became a little aggressive like McCain was throughout the entirety of the debate.

So I know you want to know.

The number of times the name Joe [the plumber] was used:
By McCain: 22
By Obama: 4

Source: me; I can count.

And here’s the beauty of the situation:
Yesterday, ABC News reported that Joe the Plumber admitted that he wouldn’t actually make more than $250,000 from his new plumbing business to pay higher taxes under Obama. In fact, it seems he would be eligible for an Obama tax cut.

My two favorite quotes from the night:
Obama: “Even FOX News disputes it, and that doesn't happen very often when it comes to accusations about me.”
McCain: “I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.”

Well said, gentlemen.
--------------------
And if you really want to do some reading, here are some differences in what was said by the two candidates on the issues of the economy and education summarized by me:
Economy:
M: Take 300 billion from the bailout and go negotiate to keep people in their homes who can’t afford their loan. This would affect 11 million homes or more.
O: Four step plan:
1) Create more jobs by ending tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas and giving a tax credit to those who are providing jobs in the U.S.
2) Middle class tax cut for those making under $200,000, and allow them to access their IRA accounts without penalty in a crisis.
3) Help homeowners renegotiate their mortgages.
4) Focus on long-term ways to improve the economy like investing in alternative energy, the health care system, and education.
M: Wants tax cuts for everyone.
O: Is okay with the top 5% paying more in taxes.
M: Wants an across the board spending freeze on everything but defense.
O: Doesn’t think an across the board spending freeze is needed; thinks that a reallocation of funds is needed in addition to cuts in spending.
Education:
O: Invest in early childhood education. Create a new generation of teachers with higher pay and more professional development in exchange for higher standards. He has proposed a $4,000 tuition credit in exchange for community service.
M: Choice of school is important. He supports charter schools. Encourage programs like Teach for America and Troops to Teachers so those who have served in the military can go straight into teaching without having to pass a required test or get certification.
O: Supports charter schools but not vouchers.
M: Supports vouchers.

Why Voting No on Prop. 8 is so Important to Me

I strongly believe in equal rights for all. As a Christian, I have a special interest in people marginalized by mainstream society. There are many reasons for this, but one is because Jesus lived a life where he continuously embraced those on the margins. He befriended and showed love to tax collectors, prostitutes, people covered in disease- the outcasts of society.

We are at a time in history when the church has a chance to embrace a particular marginalized group in society, a group that merely wants the right to get married. Yes, they could have rights without being married, but they don’t see that as equality. They want to get married just like everybody else.

This would be an incredible opportunity for churches to reach out to a community that has been repeatedly disregarded by the mainstream church, but what do churches do in response? They hang banners on their buildings that say, "Yes on Prop. 8," which are strategically placed so they can be seen from freeways. What message are they sending to the marginalized in society? They are saying if you don't fit into their definition of what a good Christian looks like, you are not welcome. Christian organizations are spending ridiculous amounts of money on campaigns to take away this right of marriage. For example, Focus on the Family has given $300,000 to the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign when we as Christians are called by Jesus to give food to the hungry, drinks to the thirsty, hospitality to the stranger, clothes to those without, and attention to the sick and those in prison. Jesus taught us to embrace the marginalized as if they were him. He didn’t say to first try to change these people and make them repent for any sin they may have committed.

If Jesus embraced those on the margins all throughout the Gospels, why do churches find it so difficult? Churches need to love their neighbors, not ostracize them.

So what is really more important, making sure that we keep the “traditional” definition of marriage (that really doesn’t hold much credibility anyway when over half of these traditional marriages end in divorce), or embracing a marginalized group of people that has been completely neglected by the church time and time again?

I will choose to embrace the marginalized and show them my support by voting No on Prop. 8.

The Second Presidential Debate: Facts and Funny Quotes

What I felt after the second presidential debate was this:
“Same sh$t, different debate.”

It seems the candidates keep rehashing the same ideas over and over.

So here are some clarifications.
(Note: I used npr.org along with factcheck.org to compile this information. They were my sources, but I didn’t just copy and paste what they wrote into my blog. These are things I feel have repeatedly been misrepresented.)

The Facts on Health Care:
McCain says that his plan would give a $5,000 tax credit to each American, but it is really a $2,500 tax credit per person or $5,000 per family. Americans could receive this tax credit to buy their own health care plan.

Obama would make medium and large companies either pay for health care for their employees or pay a tax that would go toward funding the uninsured. Small businesses would remain exempt from this tax, contrary to what McCain claims. Those Americans who remained uninsured would receive the same health care federal employees do. Obama has also said he would eliminate Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthy to pay for this.

The average employer-sponsored family policy costs $12,680 per year currently, so it seems McCain’s plan would still require families to pay a lot of money out of pocket.

In the debate, Obama said that McCain voted against the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. McCain said he did so because he didn't want to finance the program by raising the tobacco tax.

The War in Iraq:
Obama said that the U.S. is spending $10 billion per month in Iraq when the Iraqi government has $79 billion in the bank. Actually, they have $29 billion, but that number could double by the end of the year.

Offshore Drilling:
McCain promoted offshore drilling as a solution to high oil prices. The drilling would take about 10 years to develop and would add less than 2 percent to the world’s oil supply, which would have a minimal impact on prices.

Tax Cuts and Increases:
McCain repeated his claim that Obama has voted 94 times to increase taxes. This is misleading. Obama has voted consistently to restore higher taxes on upper income taxpayers (taxes that Bush cut) but not on middle or low-income workers. This matches with what he has said he would do as president, which is only raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year. McCain also has claimed that Obama wants to raise taxes on small businesses, but most small businesses don’t fall into this category of income. Obama’s tax plan would not affect most small businesses in America.

--------------------------
And to finish off with some humor, here were some of my favorite quotes from the debate:

McCain: “You know, like hair transplants, I might need one of those myself.”

Obama: “Senator McCain, I think the ‘Straight Talk Express’ lost a wheel on that one.”

McCain: “Nailing down Senator Obama's various tax proposals is like nailing Jell-O to the wall.”

Obama: “That's using a hatchet to cut the federal budget. I want to use a scalpel.”

McCain: “That requires a cool hand at the tiller.”

The VP Debate...

And our second debate party!

In my opinion, the clear winner was Biden. I have to give it to Sarah Palin that she did much better than expected, but Biden did have her beat with a strong debate performance. The issues were very much the same as in the first presidential debate, with Sarah Palin resorting back to her knowledge on energy and drilling, and Biden trying to emphasize the importance of alternative energy, not just drilling. There was disagreement over who should be taxed, with Biden wanting tax cuts to benefit the middle class and Sarah Palin focusing on tax cuts for all, emphasizing the trickle down economics theory that tax cuts for the rich create jobs. The main disagreement took place with the War in Iraq when Biden called for a time line and Palin said that approach would be like “waving the white flag of surrender.”

Some points made at our debate party that I thought were interesting (in summary):

• Wilco from the Netherlands: Joe Biden is a better debater than Barack Obama. He should have run for president. Me: He did.
• Laurel: I think it was a tie, because Palin really successfully reached out to her target audience even though she might have been a weaker debater.
• Reed: Why do they only talk about the middle class and not the poor?
  

Most people at the party thought Biden was the winner.
What did you think?

Here’s what the polls had to say:
CBS poll:
Biden won: 46%
Palin won: 21%
Tie: 33%

CNN Poll:
Biden won: 51%
Palin won: 36%
Tie: 13 %

84% of all those who were surveyed said Palin did better than expected.
But what does that show if people have that low of expectations for a vice presidential candidate?

The next presidential debate is Tuesday October 7, which is also the next debate party. Tune in at home or join us here.

P.S. Since last night was also my birthday celebration with our community here, thanks to Brooke for cooking a delicious meal, thanks to Matt for baking cookies, and thanks to the three Dutch people who each gave me three kisses.

The First Debate

Our first debate party

The debate last night was an interesting one. I thought both sides did well presenting their point of view in an intelligent manner, which would be a nice change for the office of the presidency. Most analysts seemed to say that it was a tie, but if there were a winner it would have been Obama. Hopefully voters can make an educated decision based on which side they agree with on pertinent issues. Here is what I saw as the main differences between each side based on what they said in the debate:

Obama:

• No tax increases for those making under $250,000.
• Tax cuts for 95 % of people.
• Blames financial crisis on 8 years of Bush’s failed economic policies.
• Isn’t sure if he will vote for $700 billion plan.
• Three most important things: energy independence, fix health care system, a competitive education system.
• Wants to have a time line for withdrawal from Iraq.
• Sees the war in Iraq as a place where we could cut spending, because we are spending $10 billion per month.
• Thinks we should focus more on Afghanistan.
• Iran: tougher sanctions, direct diplomacy, wants to talk with leaders.

McCain:

• Wants to cut taxes for corporations.
• Wants low taxes for all, including the rich.
• Said he will sign $700 billion plan.
• The most important thing: cut spending (yet Obama pointed out McCain agreed with Bush 90% of the time on spending).
• Thinks we are winning the war in Iraq and must stay until our soldiers can come home as victors.
• Thinks putting a timetable on the end of the war is dangerous.
• Would not talk to leaders in Iran without strict preconditions.
• Regarding Iran, he is concerned about Israel and the possibility of a second Holocaust.

I am interested to hear what you thought. Remember, the next debate is on Thursday and is a vice presidential one. We will be hosting another debate party. Let me know if you would like to come.

Ready for the First Debate

It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year…

That’s right, it’s presidential debate season. Some may argue that the song is about Christmas, but that is not really the point.

We live in a democracy, and in order for true democracy to survive and function it depends on a population of educated voters. I am a big advocate of voting, but I do believe that voting is meaningless and can even be detrimental if we are not educated about what we are voting on.

This is why the Gonzales household is hosting debate parties, and all are welcome. There are four debates showing throughout the next month. Each debate starts at 6:00 pm and will last for 90 minutes. We will watch the debate, and then for anyone interested we will eat together once the debate is over so there is time to discuss what we observed. Matt and I will be making soup for each meal, so I do need to know about how many people will be coming.

To RSVP, simply leave a comment on this post, and say which nights you will be there.

Debate Schedule:
September 26, 2008: Presidential debate with foreign policy focus
October 2, 2008: Vice Presidential debate
October 7, 2008: Presidential debate in a town hall format
October 15, 2008: Presidential debate with domestic policy focus