Post by Joseph M-

I was talking to a friend a few months back, before Romney had the Republican nomination locked up, and he relayed a thought he'd had while listening to Romney harshly criticize President Obama during a campaign stop.  He thought to himself, "I hope President Obama doesn't think that all us Mormons are like this..."

I sometimes wonder this myself.  Does President Obama somehow think that Romney is representative of Mormons in America?  Or even more specifically: do the American voters think that Romney is somehow representative of Mormons?  I swear my jokes are better than his, and I would never put a dog on top of my car for a cross-country trip.  Additionally, I have a job.

But in the end, maybe we are okay, and maybe we won't be mistaken for a Mitt-Romney-Mormon.  Let me explain: we all know that Mormons can identify other Mormons by looking at their countenance.  I was reminded of this again today while studying Alma chapter 5 in Sunday School.  Our teacher told a story of how a cashier at a grocery store asked her if she was a member of the Church.  "Yes," was her answer, to which the cashier explained, "I could tell because of your countenance."  (Our Sunday School teacher also explained that this happened at Smith's in Provo, to which I thought, "uh... everyone in Provo is Mormon; this makes it not even a lucky guess, but a statistical certainty.")

That said, even I have seen this countenance principle in action: I was with a friend at a gas station just east of the Cascade Mountain Range, and she approached a man and a woman pumping gas next to us and boldly asked, "are you LDS?"   (Who does that???)

"Yes - we are," came the response.

"I thought so!  You just had this glow about you!"  I am not lying.  This really did happen - and a study exists that backs it up.  Here is a link to it, and here is a blog post about the study.  Mormons can tell other Mormons just by looking at their faces.  We have a glow, a countenance, a halo rather than horns.  We have received his image thereupon, and this isn't just Mormon myth-making or Sunday School speculation.  This is scientific statistical fact (complete with t-tests, r-tests, x-factors, or whatever... I didn't do too well in that class.)  I'm not certain what makes one look Mormon, but this must be a good thing, right?  (I mean, it is definitely better than those pictures of meth-users in Oregon; I mean, everyone can tell what they are by their pictures as well.)  So ultimately, Mormons do have a glow that shines independent of whatever Governor Romney may do to our image.  However, this whole thing is somewhat ironic considering the "I'm a Mormon" campaign was designed at least in part to show that Mormons look just like everyone else.

Well, this complicated puzzle of facial characteristics doesn't end there.  Studies also show that Republicans and Democrats have a certain distinguishing characteristics also, and that they're able to be differentiated in photo line-ups.  Apparently, Republicans seem powerful, and Democrats appear more warm.  Here is the link to a description of the study.  But this really isn't too surprising; think of Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachman - nothing about them denotes warmth, and Newt's greasy forehead cannot be mistaken for a "glow."

But let's not stop there, for all these studies prompt the inevitable follow-up question: if Mormons are identifiable by their countenances and Democrats appear warm, what does that say about a Mormon Democrat?  I've been thinking about this, and clearly we must really have an amazing luster.  I don't know if it's on par with the likes of the transfigured Moses, but maybe Edward from Twilight as he's standing shirtless in the sun?  Just watch the people pull out their sunglasses as you walk by... and when they tell you that they sense something is different about you, or that they are drawn to you somehow, you can explain that this is because you're a Mormon and because you're voting for Obama.

Just think of Harry Reid - the supreme example of Liberal Mormondom - (I have his action figure on my desk at work) - and tell me if he doesn't have a glow like a gleaming lighthouse?  He fights the good fight, shines like a sunbeam, and literally comes from Searchlight, Nevada.  I know what the Primary Hymn instructs, (Trying to be Like Jesus,) but in case that is too high of a bar for me right now, I've decided that at the very least I am trying to be like Harry... and we'll call it good at that.

Post by Joseph M -

I wish I could see an Excel sheet printout that enumerated all the going-ons during the many Sunday School lessons taught this past Sunday (of which Mosiah 29 was discussed.)  I read a couple of comments on the Mormons for Obama Facebook group and heard a few things from some friends, and apparently this is a nearly impossible lesson to present without it getting political - although from a distance, it is somewhat difficult to see why.  (But then again, from a distance, we all have enough and no one is in need either.)  Mosiah 29 is about righteous government which is something we all can agree on, but invariably someone makes a comment that alienates or isolates another.  Of course, we'd assume that since we are all Mormons we could find common ground, but alas...

I suppose that some of our conservative Mormon brothers and sisters think that Obama is leading the country down to hell (King Noah-style), and some of our liberal LDS friends think that Romney will serve a similar function.  Thus, our Sunday School teachers must pull out the proverbial cattle prod and steer their students in the paths of political neutrality.  (But really we should just stagger the study material by one year.  Why is it that we have to study this chapter during the presidential election cycle?)  Interestingly, while most Mormons tense up when political topics are broached at church, other Christians relish in it. (Jeremiah Wright?)  I read an article once that quoted Larry King, (who sometimes attends church with his LDS wife,) saying that Mormon sacrament meetings were so far-removed from politics and current social issues that they were boring.  Well, maybe he didn't say that exact quotation, but according to this report on the Cougarboard, he became so frustrated during one testimony meeting, he swore and threw his hands up in disapproval.

But ultimately, discussing politics is not the end goal of church attendance; our hope is to learn to be more like our Saviour.  However, in our attempts to be better Mormons, we sometimes forget the importance of being a good Latter-day Saint.  We have received several emails that express appreciation for the site - for the connection people feel in finding other Mormons who share their political beliefs.  I've also read similar comments on the Mormons for Obama Facebook group, and I believe that this comes from a sense of being alone in the (ward) world.  While we should feel a kinship with our fellow saints, sometimes the side comments, questions, and accusations can set us apart.

Here is a part of one email we receieved:  "Before a general priesthood meeting our ward met for a party, and it was tough to hear (one of the leaders in the ward) complain about Obama 'always talking about feeding the poor - feeding the poor!' I just couldn't bring myself to point out the irony of the statement just before we heard Apostles of the Lord tell us that we are our brother's keeper."

Another email said this:  "Most of the time I feel like I'm in hiding about my "true" self in my small (a little blue dot in a red state) town. I feel I can't really be myself without being ostracized for my political beliefs. They're just a few of us in this town, and we've vowed (behind the scenes) to stick together. But mostly in silence...I don't want to fight and bicker and lose friends, so I just keep my mouth shut."

Seriously.  We shouldn't feel alone at church.  And this type of thing is the exact opposite of Alma's invitation to the Nephites to be baptized in the Waters of Mormon (Mosiah 18:8-10).  So I guess the point is something like this: conservative Mormons, don't forget that you have liberal Latter-day Saints in your midst! And liberal Latter-day Saints: let's show love for those Fox-News-watching, Rush-Limbaugh-listening, Ann-Coulter-book-reading, Glen-Beck-loving Mormons on our home and visiting teaching lists!

And of course this is true even amongst Obama supporters; we have some huge differences in our thoughts and interpretations.  This was evident as we tried to address the issues of marriage equality; after reviewing our posts, one reader of the website felt alienated by the articles supporting Obama's position.  So I am trying to remember: regardless of how far apart I might feel from the gun-toting, SUV-driving, Romney-voting Mormon sitting next to me in Elder's Quorum, he is my brother in the gospel, and we have more that knits us together than that which divides.

This is the second post in a series of viewpoints on Obama's support for marriage equality.

Post by Eric R -

After Obama recently came out in support of gay marriage our housemate, a liberal self-identified atheist, asked my wife if we were going to take the “I’m Voting for Obama, and I’m a Mormon” bumper sticker off of our car. Apparently he assumed that any politician who supported gay marriage would be a politician we couldn’t, as Mormons, support.

While I can understand why he might have jumped to that conclusion, it is unfortunate that the image he had of us was so closely tied to the most vocally conservative of the Religious Right.

While gay marriage is a moral/social issue that I do have feelings about, it is certainly not the only moral/social issue I take into consideration when deciding how to vote. I also believe that how candidates address questions of war, poverty, equality, capital punishment, social programs aimed at supporting our nation’s most vulnerable and the environment as important moral indicators as well. And with respect to each of these moral questions, it is clear to me that Obama, and the Democratic party generally, more closely represents what I believe would be Christ’s position on such issues.

I am not single-issue voter, as no person who is concerned with the bigger picture could be. That said, looking specifically at the issue of gay marriage I see some elements of Obama’s stance that I can support. And it isn’t just me, but the Church as well.

Back in late 2009 the Salt Lake City council was debating a series of non-discrimination ordinances designed to make explicit certain rights for same-sex couples. Weighing in on the controversial topic, the First Presidency released a statement that reads, in part, that the Church "does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights or probate rights." The Church also said that it is “not anti-gay”, but rather “pro-marriage between a man and a woman. And there is a huge difference between those two points.”

I spend enough time with non-Mormon lefties to know that many of them have a very hard time distinguishing between those two points, and I would be lying if I said that this issue does not cause some friction between many of my friends and me. That said, it is clear to me that a), God wants us to, first and foremost, treat all of our brothers and sisters with love, and b), that it is completely appropriate to push for equal rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples that heterosexual couples currently enjoy and are subject to – even if we don’t call it marriage.

So while I may not be on the same page with Obama concerning all aspects of his support for gay marriage, I would have to say that our views are compatible on about two-thirds of the issue. While that isn’t 100%, it is a great deal better than the Right’s alternative of continued disenfranchisement and denial of reality.

The next several posts on Mormons for Obama will address President Obama's support for marriage equality.  This is the first in the series.

Post by Joseph M -

Two weeks ago, President Obama stated his support for marriage equality while conducting an interview with Robin Roberts of ABC, and he described his position on the matter as having undergone an evolution over time. Of course, many have speculated that he has supported for gay marriage for a while now, and President Obama admitted that his announcement of support was spurred by VP Joe Biden's comments several days before that he supported gay marriage.

And while this allows many the opportunity to shout out an "Amen," others might find themselves in the midst of a Mormon conundrum (as Cynthia L of By Common Consent so aptly pointed out.) The Church's stance on gay marriage is pretty clear, and it's laid out in The Proclamation on the Family, (any guesses when this will be canonized?) and further affirmed through the Church's campaign for Proposition 8 in California in 2008.

However, this is where things get a bit murky - because while the Church's position on gay marriage is very clear, many were surprised by the aftermath that followed Proposition 8: a movie, protests, and a trail of disaffected Mormons who were confused as to why the Church chose to get involved in the issue in the first place.  The protests even reached Seattle, where about 40 people lined up outside the Stake Center in the U District at 8 am to protest; it was Stake Conference that day, so they had to wait two hours before anyone showed up, but their point was not misunderstood.  Like a blind-sided contestant on CBS's Survivor, they were shocked and outraged that a church would organize a campaign effort of this sort.

Although the Church was not the one that began the campaign for Prop 8, the Church has been actively opposing gay marriage for some time and has participated in past campaigns in Hawaii and Alaska.  The "story" is that the Church was courted to participate by Catholics and conservative inter-faith groups.  (Apparently, this is the only time these Christians have need for Latter-day Saints; Mormons are excellent at organizing: think of moves by the Elder's Quorum, casseroles for new mothers, and visiting teaching.  Otherwise the Church is kept at a safe distance seeing that it is a cult.)  But after having been invited to the party, Mormons ended up providing the cake, ice cream, and crepe paper decorations, and ultimately they were left to clean up the whole mess after all the party-goers left for home - and this included more than a few broken windows, lost jobs, death threats, and incidents of vandalism.  (However, I should point out that these interfaith groups did take out a full page ad in the NY Times to ask the gay rights groups to be nicer to the Mormons.)

But this did not signal an end to the issue for Californians or the Church.  The Prop 8 court battle continues, and other states (North Carolina) are amending constitutions, passing laws, and seeking signatures for referendums for ballot measures.  Currently Washington State and Maryland are both facing possible referendums, and Washington State's anti-gay marriage contingent have almost enough signatures (121,000) to get its Referendum 74 on the November ballot.  (Ref 74 essentially is Senate Bill 6239, that was passed by the Washington State Senate and Legislature, and signed by Governor Christine Gregoire on February 13th, making marriage available to all in Washington State. Ref 74 will put this bill to the people for approval or rejection.)

I've heard from several Mormons in Washington who are concerned that the Church might organize around this referendum as they did with Prop 8 in California.  Clearly the Church is still watching the Prop 8 battle play out and has periodically issued statements like check point markers along the way.  The heart of the Church's argument against gay marriage is the doctrine of the eternal nature of families.  However, the Church and other conservative groups have justified their opposition to gay marriage because of fears that their religious organizations will be required to provide same-sex marriages and adoption services to gay couples; (see this article on NPR for examples.) The WA state marriage equality bill has provisions that will not allow this.

But as far as Washington goes, the Church may be sitting this one out.  There are some reports that letters have been read over pulpits of some wards in WA and Maryland, and that (once again) the coalition to disapprove Ref 74 has reached out to local LDS leaders.   However, the broader Church leadership seems to be staying silent.  Considering the time, money, and energy invested in passing Prop 8 by the local and Salt Lake leadership of the Church, some people expected to see a similar thing happen here in Washington as well.  But alas, the Church seems to have evolved in its thinking in regard to its political participation in this issue.

Some may say that this might mean that the Church is realizing it was wrong in its approach to Prop 8, but I wouldn't go that far.  All of its statements regarding the campaign in California are on LDS.org, and Elder Oaks defended the campaign in a speech in 2009 at BYU-Idaho that further stoked the fires of discontent for civil rights activists.  However, in a Time magazine article, Elder Quentin Cook is quoted as saying, "talking about what may or may not happen in (future campaigns) would be speculation, and I  wouldn't want to do that."  The article goes on to quote David Campbell, a Mormon University of Notre Dame political scientist: "If it appeared that the  church sat out next time because it was criticized this time, there might be a credibility question. (But) does the church want the public to identify it primarily as a political body opposing an issue that comes back again and again?"  Read full article here.

Regardless of what the Church decides to do, this evolution is happening all over.  While, some Mormons have been rallying around this issue for some time, (see MormonsforMarriage.com,) others are changing more slowly. (Side note: some Mormons are even participating in Seattle's Gay Pride Parade to show support for WA's equality law. See article here.)

Jim, a commenter on Joanna Brook's article on religiondispacthes.org, wrote: "...At first I was nervous because I thought my views were moving me out of line with the church's teachings. I worried a lot about reconciling what I felt led and inspired to believe with the teachings of leaders of the church, but as my heart changed, I kept finding other faithful members of the church growing in the same way I was. They were Sunday school teachers, young women leaders, bishops and stake presidents."

The evolution of thought around this issue is happening slowly in some arenas and quickly in others.  Even Jay-Z (a rapper!) came out in support of marriage equality.  President Obama's position has evolved, and Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State describes "the evolution of her personal views" to explain her support and promotion of the bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington State.

The Mormon position is evolving as well - and maybe this is happening more individually than collectively.  How this plays out this summer in Washington and Maryland, is anybody's guess, but I imagine that most of the meeting house pulpits will stay silent on gay marriage. (And many in the congregation will breath a sign of relief and wipe the anxious sweat of dread off their brow.)  And hopefully, all of this evolving Mormon good will towards and in behalf of the rights of others will have a pleasing effect on the church collectively, if not just individually.

Post by Joseph M -

Romney has fought hard to keep the campaign about the issues (or issue in his case: the economy,) and he's fighting again; he quickly slammed attempts by a Super PAC to produce an anti-Obama ad that focused on racially charged comments made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright - see Yahoo News story.

Romney stated, "I want to make it very clear, I repudiate that effort. I think it's the wrong course for a PAC or a campaign. I hope that our campaigns can respectively be about the futures and about issues and about a vision for America."

Good for Romney, and good for all of us.  The last thing we need is for the Mormon Republican nominee to call for open season on the shooting range of religious affiliation.  Obama is also trying to stick to the issue(s) by making coordinated attacks against Romney's record as a "job creator" at Bain Capital.  But regardless, social issues have been creeping around the edges of this campaign - like President Obama's admission of support for marriage equality last week (more on that in a later post,) or during the divisive campaign to choose a Republican nominee.  However, even though Romney and Obama are attempting to steer the campaign away from these so-called social issues, enquiring minds still want to know that their Presidential candidate is just like them in every way possible (which is why we only have two viable political parties in the USA?) They want to know that their president supports/doesn't support abortion, is against/for marriage equality, loves/hates poor people, embodies righteousness/evil.

The two-party system has always had its drawbacks.  How can you fit 350 million Americans under two umbrellas of political belief when their cultural, spiritual, and religious perspectives literally fill the whole world?   (And also when half of them don't even vote?)  This must be where the so-called "independents" come into play.  Who are these people anyway?  (I have yet to meet one... although I do have faith that they exist.)

But where does all of this leave us Mormons?   With our belief in the reality of righteousness and sin, the existence of God and Satan, and polarity of good and evil, it might make sense to some Latter-day Saints that the Democratic and Republican parties would fit into the same dichotomous structure.  And this leaves very little room in the middle for fence-sitting (or even for those of us that still insist on sitting on the back row of Elder's Quorum  so we can play Draw Something on our smart phones.)

2 Nephi 2:15 explains that this dichotomy has existed since the beginning:  After (the Lord) created our first parents...it must needs be that there is an opposition: even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.  But while we believe that there is opposition in all things, at what point does this leave the realm of individual practice and personal decision and leap into the world of political affiliation as well?

This might be confusing for some LDS when it comes to choosing a political party or candidate, (i.e., Republicans are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and advocate self-reliance, so they must be righteous.  Democrats promote abortions, don't let children pray in school, and like to elect Muslims for president, so they must be Satan.)  But forcing the two political parties into a good vs. evil scenario seems to presuppose that God Himself is at the helm of one of these (Republican?) political parties.  It ignores the fact that when we vote, we are participating in an imperfect, earth-bound, and very American political system.

We received a comment on the website that basically asked the question, how could a Mormon support Democrats or Obama when their platform supports abortion?  This question speaks to the simplistic reasoning that some people struggle with and that is encouraged by the two-party system.   Robert Fantina wrote a well-nuanced response on MormonsforObama.org to explain that all is not so simple:

The Democratic platform does support abortion, but the Republicans do nothing to prevent abortions. They will not countenance sex education, and are now making it more difficult for women to obtain contraceptives. And they appear not to care at all about babies once they are born: they will do everything possible to deprive them of health care, Head Start programs, etc...When (George W.) Bush was president, he stopped funding for Marie Slopes International (I think that’s the name of the organization), because they provided family planning, although not abortion, services. MSI estimated that, due to this funding cut, approximately 200,000 women in their serving area who didn’t want to get pregnant, would, and of those, approximately 60,000 would have abortions. So how was he a pro-life president?

Thanks to Robert for the comment and also for the link to his article on Pacific Free Press: What Makes a Romney Win Scary? (Hint: It Ain't Religion)

In short, the issues in this 2012 election are much more complex and nuanced than the few minutes of time it will take to fill out a mail-in ballot would leave one to believe.  However, I recognize that most people understand this.  I have conversations with my Mormon friends and family who are Republican, Libertarian (you know who you are,) and Nader-ists, and the dialogue is almost always engaging, stimulating, and respectful.  By their very nature, political parties are imperfect and fallible, and they don't easily lend themselves to black and white categorization... more like 50 shades of grey.  So I would in turn ask the Mormons who question my faith and allegiance to the gospel because of my support for Obama: how can you so readily assume that because I'm an active and faithful Mormon that I would by necessity vote Republican?

So let's put this simplistic thinking to rest. Choosing Obama over Romney is not the same as choosing the great and spacious building over the tree of life.  But don't get me wrong; I do believe that there are extremely compelling reasons to vote for Obama in 2012, and so I don't mean to trivialize the decision with the following analogy; but maybe it's more like choosing a spinach salad with feta, cranberries, and raspberry vinaigrette over an iceberg lettuce concoction from Jack in the Box.  The iceberg lettuce salad has a form of healthiness, but in the end it is empty, wilted, and undeniably overpriced.

Post by Joseph M -

The Priesthood/Relief Society lesson manual (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith) contains a rather instructive quotation.

"Let us pray for the great men and women of the world who need the Lord but do not understand his interest in them. Pray for … our governors, our mayors of cities, the men who have influence in politics in our various communities, that they may do the things that will be better for all of us and make us happier, and please our Heavenly Father. That is our privilege. I say to you that the power of prayer is something that cannot be measured, " (Lesson 9.)

We read this during our joint Elder's Quorum/High Priest Group meeting yesterday, and our instructor asked an interesting question: "Is our nation so partisan that we fail to pray for the great leaders, those who have the fate of nation's in their hands?"  I've been thinking about this for the past 30 hours or so, and I've pondered the fact that even though I am a supporter of our president, I do not often remember to pray for him; this extends also to local leaders in my state and city.  Thus, this lesson has inspired a course-correction on my part.  Additionally, I am realizing that I should take this counsel into consideration regardless of who wins the election in 2012.

So I'm finding myself pausing to consider what this means for me and for each of us, whether we support President Obama or not.  I think many of us in America are too busy filling our mouths with words of divisiveness and accusation to find time for prayer, much less a prayer that petitions the Lord in behalf of the man we have just maligned.

I received an "anti-Obama" email recently - one of those that have been forwarded around and around (and clearly it had made its way around Mormon circles,) and it was so ugly and partisan that I felt myself getting angry.  (And I am not implying that emails that unfairly demean Mitt Romney aren't out there as well - I think both sides need to calm this mess down.)  But this particular email was so out there that I felt particularly frustrated with the Christian right for not acting too Christian.

Clearly this idea of praying for our leaders is not conducive to the ugly partisanship that exists in our nation: the name-calling, the declarations that the only goal is to see President Obama "fail," the racist remarks... none of this is invites an attitude of prayer.

However, I acknowledge that we have real political differences that need to be discussed and debated, but often it goes too far - and I am far from perfect with this myself.  But I am surprised by anyone who would claim that either Obama or Romney are out to destroy our freedom, tear down this nation, or stomp on the constitution.  We started this website with the statement, "we don’t hate Mitt Romney, and we don’t want to character-assassinate him here," and we continue to maintain that position.  Additionally, I would hope that we could collectively (as Mormons, Christians, or Americans,) calm the waters that are swirling around during this election cycle.

I believe taking the time to remember our national leaders in prayer just might do the job, and ultimately, this may be as much for our benefit as it is for theirs.

Some of you may already know this (especially if you searched for this site because of the article by Scott Conroy on RealClearPolitics.com), but MormornsforObama.org received mention in the article, "Pro-Obama Mormons Unswayed by Shared Faith with Romney."

Conroy reflects the views of the many of us who are Mormon and voting for Obama quite well, and Hannah Wheelwright says it perfectly with her quotation in the article: “The fact that I’m a Mormon is why I’m voting for President Obama instead of Mitt Romney. I’m a Democrat because I’m a Mormon. I think there’s so many things in my faith that do promote certain policies in the Democratic Party, and a lot of the reason I support President Obama is his dedication to social programs, equality, and those types of things.”

However, there is one area where I think Conroy didn't get it right (and I'm not referring to when he mistakenly wrote that Laura attends weekly church services at the Seattle Temple); he writes that "there is a significant subsection of younger, liberal-leaning church members who are emphatic supporters of Obama and who cannot relate to Romney as a politician, despite their shared faith."  This has not been my experience.  I have found that Mormons of all ages plan to vote for Obama.   I know many LDS Obama supporters, and I've never noticed that youth was some defining characteristic that linked them together.  Even myself, (although I listen to some hip hop and that new song by that band fun.), can hardly be considered young.

[caption id="attachment_912" align="alignleft" width="248"] Seattle Poster, by Jenny Beorkrem[/caption]

I live in Seattle, Washington, and I knew before I moved here that the city was somewhat liberal, but I've been happy to find that this extends to many of my LDS friends and leaders at church as well.  I've never been embarrassed, nervous, or ashamed to talk about my political leanings with other Mormons, and sometimes I just assume that everyone votes Democratic, much like Utah Mormons undoubtably assume that everyone is Republican.  But even those Mormons who are "conservative" seem fine with all the Democrats around them.  I don't know the statistics here, but I would guess that the LDS Democrats in Seattle may not be outnumbered - or if they are, it can't be by much.

But this is my point: while I recognize that many Mormons vote Republican, I don't see that this is some defining characteristic of Mormonism or that youth is a defining characteristic of LDS Dems.  The Church has a long-standing position of political neutrality, and this is much more defining of Mormons than a particular party affiliation.

So while it may seem odd to some that we have this website or that we are opting out of voting for the Mormon, for me (and Hannah Wheelwright,) supporting Obama really makes all the sense in the world.

Post by Joseph M- 

(Originally posted Feb. 5, 2012)

My principal reason for backing President Obama is his support and initiation of healthcare reform, and ultimately his signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law in 2010. Republicans have pejoratively labeled it Obamacare; meanwhile President Obama has embraced the term, saying, "I have no problem with people saying Obama cares. I do care." I care too, and this issue is the political lynchpin for me. I cannot support any candidate who does not appreciate or understand the need for an expansion of access to healthcare in this country. Healthcare should not be a privilege of the wealthy, but a right for all. I believe that if we can get behind public monies for libraries, sports arenas, museums, parks, wildlife protection, and Bombs over Baghdad, then we should also ensure healthcare access.

And so you might further see my point: are you aware that through local tax payer money, you (and your children) can check out Saw I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and Saw: the Final Chapter from the Seattle Public Library and the King County Library System? And I just checked - you can get it at the Salt Lake City Library as well.

My belief is that providing healthcare is the right thing to do; it is the Christian thing to do, and this aligns with my Mormon faith. I echo the words written by Boyd Peterson in his essay entitled, Why I'm a Mormon Democrat:

"I believe that the Democratic party takes the strongest position on many moral issues. For example, King Benjamin's address in the Book of Mormon admonishes us to prioritize, 'feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants' (Mosiah 4:26). I believe the Democratic party works harder to protect and defend these moral priorities." 

And so I feel about President Obama. When I decided to vote for Barack Obama, I did so with the belief that he would bring change to America and especially its healthcare system. Of course, there is more to be done. However, President Obama has fulfilled his promise of change in so many ways; therefore, I will continue to support him and his presidency.

In addressing the specific issue of healthcare, I like these two quotations, one from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the second from the American Medical Student Association:

"Our approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle: 'Every person has a right to adequate health care. This right flows from the sanctity of human life and the dignity that belongs to all human persons, who are made in the image of God.' Health care is more than a commodity; it is a basic human right, an essential safeguard of human life and dignity. We believe our people's health care should not depend on where they work, how much their parents earn, or where they live. Our constant teaching that each human life must be protected and human dignity promoted leads us to insist that all people have a right to health care."

USCCB - June 18, 1993, "A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform."

"In a time when thousands of people lose their health insurance every day, when health care is becoming elusive to even well-to-do Americans, and when any person is just one pink slip away from becoming uninsured, it becomes clear that health care for all is not just important to achieve, but imperative.

At its root, the lack of health care for all in America is fundamentally a moral issue. The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have some form of universal health care (defined as a basic guarantee of health care to all of its citizens). While other countries have declared health care to be a basic right, the United States treats health care as a privilege, only available to those who can afford it...

Americans purport to believe in equal opportunity. Yet, in the current situation, those who do not have health care are at risk for financial ruin and poorer health, both of which disadvantage them in society and thereby do not give them equal opportunity...

The Declaration of Independence states there are certain 'inalienable rights', including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If Americans believe in an inalienable right to life, how can we tolerate a system that denies people lifesaving medications and treatments? Similarly, if Americans believe in an inalienable
right to the pursuit of happiness, how can we allow millions of dreams to be smashed by the financial and physical consequences of uninsurance?"

AMSA - Aug. 27, 2009, "The Case for Universal Healthcare."

It feels dang good to be on the right side of history on this one.

To see Part 2 of this post click here.

Here is the design - with a bigger and brighter font - (Some people said that the last one was a little hard to read from a distance on those wide Salt Lake City streets.)  Just click here.  Those of you that preordered: your stickers are on the way.

[caption id="attachment_844" align="aligncenter" width="540"] I'm voting for Obama, and I buy American[/caption]

Post by Eric R -

You have probably heard about the dust-up over a comment Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made about Ann Romney a few days ago. What Rosen actually said was that “you have Mitt Romney running around, saying, ‘Well you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of women in this country are facing.”

Of course the words Rosen chose were not good, but that does not mean the point she was trying to make wasn’t true. The fact is that Ann Romney had the luxury to choose to stay home to raise the family’s children, and she actually has no idea what it is like to struggle to make ends meet in a tough economy. That isn’t an insult; it is just a fact.

Of course it is no surprise that the right-wing media has been doing their best to paint the left (Obama) as hostile to traditional values (They hate motherhood, for goodness sakes!) A regular Fox contributor, Dr. Keith Ablow, provided an illustrative example of the discourse coming from the Right on the subject when he said: “Women who are happy raising families don’t have much ‘cred’ with Rosen or, for that matter, President Obama, because Rosen and Obama resonate only with those who carry the flag of the disenfranchised and abused.  Anyone who thrives in an American company or American home, while proud and happy with any element of traditional American values, must be a hopeless automaton or relic of the oppressive past.” Yup, that is exactly what Rosen was saying, I’m sure.

Far from being concerned with women, of course the Right is concerned that Mitt Romney trails Obama by nearly 20 percentage points among likely women voters. And why does Obama have such a big lead among women voters? Well, as a man I don’t know that I am qualified to say, but I have a hunch it may have something to do with how Republicans have behaved with regards to issues that impact women particularly.

I found two (admittedly biased) sources detailing some of the Republican low-lights from the recent past with regards to women’s issues: Media Matters and MoveOn.org. Taking them for what they are worth, they are helpful in giving a broader picture of what types of measures Republican legislators across the country have been pushing for, (and all their sources are linked, so you can check them out for yourself). Here are just a few:

1) More than 150 Republicans signed on to a bill that would have redefined under what circumstances an institution receiving government funds could provide an abortion, replacing “rape” with “forcible rape”. With this language change, statutory rape, say a 13-year old impregnated by a 30-year-old for instance, would not qualify.

2) The Republican spending plan proposed to eliminated entirely Title X, which provides family planning for low-income Americans. And no, “family planning” is not just a code word for “abortions”, as birth control, pre-natal care, teen pregnancy prevention programs and other crucial health services are part of Title X.

3) The House GOP plan would also cut more than $750 million from food programs for low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies and children.

4) Republican lawmakers in Maryland cut Head Start funding, saying that it was not needed since mothers could just choose to stay home with their children instead. And at the federal level, Republicans cut $1 billion from the program, which could kick 200,000 low-income kids off the roles, and see some 55,000 instructors and teachers loose their jobs.

5) The Republican’s 2011 budget proposal cut $2 billion from job training programs, which are designed to help workers in low-wage, low-skill, and low-security jobs – disproportionately women – prepare for employment in growth areas.

6) Because women comprise more than two-thirds of the poor over age 65, Republican-proposed cuts in food, housing and job programs for senior citizens would disproportionately hurt elderly women.

7) The Republican Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, signed a bill (passed along party lines) repealing the 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges.  Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court. "Economic security is a women's health issue," said Sara Finger, executive director of WAWH. "The salary women are paid directly affects the type and frequency of health care services they are able to access. At a time when women's health services are becoming more expensive and harder to obtain, financial stability is essential to maintain steady access."

As I said before, these are just a few examples of what types of actions Republican legislatures are taking all around the country with regards to issues that impact women the most (and I didn’t even mention the proposed laws that would force women seeking an abortion to submit to a transvaginal ultrasound first). So while we can all agree that a mother who has the ability to make a choice to stay home with her children is a good thing, I think the Republicans are going to need a lot more than a poor choice of words from a Democratic strategist to convince women they are actually on their side.