Things are really heating up.  If your elected representatives are hosting an "open house" or a townhall over the next month or two, you can make a difference by attending, and bringing along some friends who are also in that representative's area.  Thank the representative for the things he or she has done that you have liked, and don't be afraid to bring up what you haven't liked and why.

Make the most of your access to your representative, whether we are talking about the President, a Congressman, or a Mayor.

These tips below come from a friend of mine who works with elected officials, is a communications and public speaking expert, and has extensive public relations experience.  He has graciously and anonymously submitted them for publication here on The Playful Walrus.

Prepare:

1) Determine the nature of the event ahead of time.  Are there set topics?  What is the elected representative likely to talk about?  Will they be taking questions and in what format?  Check the website and call ahead if you need to.  If it is going to be at some facility you can access ahead of time, you may want to drop by to get the lay of the land.  Pay attention as you arrive to try to get a feel for the event and the crowd that is showing up.  It will help if you get there early!

2) Dress and groom appropriately (modestly, humbly?).  Right or wrong, people will make some judgments about you by the way you appear.  Remember your accessories – jewelry, pins, buttons, etc. - what do they say about you?

3) Bring a recording device if possible, appropriate to the nature of the event.  Err on the side of bringing something you don’t end up using.  This may help in not only recording the representative’s statements, but also any shenanigans by others such as Leftist activists.

Plan What You May Say Ahead of Time:

4) Consider your audience.  Who are you trying to convince and of what?  The representative? The other attendees?  Those who will see the even replayed via professional or audience media?

5) Refine and practice your talking points.  You may want to develop them based on the representative's usual talking points.  Bring along their own words if need be, such as from campaign materials or speeches.  Prioritize your messages.  What do you want to talk about?  Bailouts?  Judicial appointments? Deficits? Taxes? Obamacare?  Cap and trade? DOMA? National defense? Border control? Fighting terrorists?  Don't ramble and avoid using partisan jargon.  Get your point across as succinctly as possible.

6) Personalize it - tell YOUR story:
"I came to this country legally and became a citizen as soon as I could…"
"My parents came to this country…"
"We left the old country because…"
"I grew up poor, but I’ve made it this far…"
"I worked three jobs at once to get ahead…"
"I work long days and long weeks…"
"I put myself through school…"
"I've worked my way up the ladder…"
"I've built my business…"
"I pay my bills and have been responsible with my money…"
"I am a victim of lawsuit abuse…"
"Because of the tax laws…"
"I am a veteran…"
"I am a homeowner…"
"I am a landlord…"
"I'm a parent…"
"I'm a union member because I don't have a choice, and my union leaders do not speak for me when they…"
"I have invested in…"
"I was adopted…"
"I think my doctor is the greatest…"
"I'm happy with my insurance…"
"I suffered through a crime…"
"I am encountering red tape that is keeping me from…"

Refrain from quoting or paraphrasing a political talk show host, columnist, or author, unless you are trying to get the representative to go on record opposing that statement.  You aren't there because of what Rush said.  You are there because YOU are facing consequences from what the representative is doing.

If You Get the Chance to Speak:

7) Start with "thanks".  Thank the representative and his or her staff for putting this event together and for meeting with you.  Do this even if you can barely stand to be in the same room as them.

8) Secondly, tell the politician what you like about him or her or what he or she has done, even if you really have to look hard to find it.

9) Next, if you voted for this person, say so.  If you contributed in some other way to the campaign, say so.  They don't want to lose support.  (If you did not contribute or vote in this way, don't mention that.  If they already know you're a staunch supporter of their political rivals, they'll be more dismissive.)

10) It's good to let them know you are angry (if you are), but you're not going to win over anyone by being belligerent.  Explain why you are angry ("I didn't buy a house using a crazy mortgage; I waited until I could actually afford it, and yet I am punished…") and what you plan to do about it.  Point out that you are willing to speak out, write letters, call, blog, text, demonstrate, walk precincts, raise funds, and vote.  Be assertive and tenacious, but polite.

11) Ask questions whenever possible, as mere assertions are easy to ignore.  For example, "Why do you think you need to intrude into my doctor's office, which is what this legislation does?" is better than "I don't want you in my doctor’s office with me."  Questions demand an answer.  Assertions do not.

12) Do not allow a dodge.  Don't be afraid to point out that they didn't actually answer the question, if they didn't. If appropriate, ask for verifiable commitments ("Will you promise us that you will not vote to increase taxes on capital gains?")

13) Don't be hesitant to condemn statements or actions of any disruptive "right wing" folks (quite possibly Leftist imposters) who make a scene there.  You know the type – those who use racist slurs, call for actual inappropriate violence, or assert some bizarre conspiracy theory.

Finally:

14) Don't be dissuaded or intimidated from going or speaking.  Stand up for your rights!

Feel free to share these tips, but please link back to The Playful Walrus.

It is a no-brainer that Obamacare is going to be one way the Left significantly controls our lives and furthers their other agendas besides socialism, rewarding allies and punishing foes.

It is more likely than not that as a result of Obamacare, eventually you will be forced to fund:

• "third-party" reproduction for individuals, couples, or groups that do not provide resulting children with a presumably monogamous mother and father married to each other to be their parents
• destruction of human beings as embryos (see item #1, where "extra" embryos are made)
• abortions, including late-term abortions
• genital mutilation surgery (gender "reassignment") and hormones
• killing people because they are old, sick, disabled, or depressed (“euthanasia”)
• clean needles for druggies
• condom distribution to people too young to legally consent to sex
• sex "therapy" involving or encouraging pornography, adultery, fornication, etc.
• 
  

I'm sure there is a lot I've missed.  Feel free to add your own.

It's isn't far-fetched that Obamacare will lead to more restrictions on what we are allowed to eat, and other such controlling measures for the sake of... reducing health care costs.

Is this what you want?  Do you want more control of your life to be centralized in the federal government? 

Catherine Lyons, over on the LATimes.com opinion blog, asks if the right to life stops when a child is born.  She is specifically is referring to a perceived lack of concern by pro-lifers when it comes to parents who pray for their children instead of seeking medical treatment for them.

Dale Neumann was convicted Saturday of killing his 11-year-old daughter, Madeline, because he prayed for her instead of taking her to a hospital when her undiagnosed diabetes got so bad that she couldn't eat, drink, walk or speak. She died on the floor of her rural Wisconsin home with her father, mother and a group of people praying for her healing. Neumann says he was simply putting his faith first and following the will of God, but a jury found him guilty of second-degree reckless homicide.

If he believes the Bible is authoritative, then for what it is worth, the Bible does not advise believers to forgo medical treatment, nor promise the faithful healing and health in this lifetime.  See here for more info.  Christian parents should pray for their children and seek medical treatment for them.

This event raises serious questions about the conflict between individual rights and governmental power, just as abortion does. Both involve innocent and dependent lives with no real power to contest a parent's choices.

Actually, I think there is - it is called taking the child into protective custody.  If it can be demonstrated that a parent is abusing or neglecting a child, that is what should be done.  I believe in parental authority over minors and freedom of religion, but both have their limits.  For example, other than abortion, or the post-partum/hormonal defense by women, we do not allow people to get away with child sacrifice.

Isn't this a Right to Life issue? And if it is, where are the Right to Lifers?

Well, I think I qualify as a pro-lifer, as I believe in the sanctity of human life from conception through natural death.  I support the prosecution and conviction of Dale Neumann.

I'd like to turn this question around, though.  What about someone who denies treatment, or even just hydration, to a comatose adult?  Why is that okay but denying treatment to a diabetic child is prosecutable as murder?

I also want to point out that the right to life means protection from someone else killing you - obviously, we all die one way or another.  It can be argued that Neumann contributed to the death of his child by refusing to get her readily available, established treatment.

God ordains the means and the ends.  If medical treatments can help, do not avoid them.  Prayer is great, but there is no reason why it can't be done in conjunction with medical treatment.  From everything I've read and experienced, prayer's primary function is to get is to focus on God (not to "change God's mind"), and you can do that while also using medicine.  Unless God has given you special, specific revelation, then refusing the medical abilities He has provided to people so as to demonstrate "faith" is mere superstition, akin to thinking your mother's spine will be damaged because you stepped on a crack on the sidewalk.

I may be more of a feminist than some who call themselves feminists leaders.

I believe in equal rights for all women, no matter where they live or what their political views.

I don't believe in putting Leftist unity, Democrat election victories, socialism, or "peace" with terrorists over the rights of a woman.

I believe in a girl's right to life; that she should not be butchered in the womb for no other reason than being a girl, or any other reason other than to save her mother's life.

I believe in a girl's right for her parents to protect her, and her mother's right to object to a school taking her daughter for surgery without even informing her, or attempting to brainwash her daughter with Leftist nonsense.

I believe in a woman's right to work without being forced to join a union or pay for political activism with which she disagrees.

I believe in a woman's right to negotiate her compensation with any employer, without any government involvement forcing her to get the same pay as someone else.

I believe in a woman's right to choose mothering over career, or career instead of mothering, or a career that allows her to actively mother her own children, or a husband that will take care of the kids and home while she works.

I believe in a woman's right to manage the fruits of her own professional labor via lower taxes, including her freedom to accumulate and pay off her own debts; budget, save, and invest; pay for her own meals, drinks, entertainment, etc.

I believe in a woman's right to her own property.

I believe in a woman's right to choose whether or not she will have sex, and whether it will be with her loving, devoted, husband who can afford to raise a family or with some guy she just met in a bar who has no money - and I believe that she, being an adult, can handle the consequences without my help.

I believe in a girl's right to a mother and and a father.

I believe in a woman's right to pay support to her ex-husband if she earned more during the marriage, and child support if he has majority custody of their children - just like if the sexes were reversed.

I believe in a woman's right to be treated the same as a man would be treated in cases of domestic violence and other crimes, including statutory rape of underage boys.

I believe in a woman's right to self-defense, including gun ownership and use.

What about most "feminist leaders"?

It's now considered a victory that the American Psychological Association isn't completely trashing religion while they tell people unhappy with homosexual feelings that they can't leave homosexuality uh, behind.  Associated Press writer David Crary has the story.

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

Even though some some people have done just that.

Instead, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options - that could range from celibacy to switching churches - for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

I see.  Ditch your faith like it is a scarf you just happened to pick out.  Put your sexual cravings before God.

In a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote by the APA's governing council, and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the 150,000-member association put itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.

Even though it has worked for some.  Please note that they voted on this - all of you people who think we should not be able to vote on things.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

You mean more than homosexuality already does?

Judith Glassgold, a Highland Park, N.J., psychologist who chaired the task force, said she hoped the document could help calm the polarized debate between religious conservatives who believe in the possibility of changing sexual orientation and the many mental health professionals who reject that option.

Don't forget the people who have actually done it.

"Both sides have to educate themselves better," Glassgold said in an interview. "The religious psychotherapists have to open up their eyes to the potential positive aspects of being gay or lesbian."

Such as?  I can't list them, or I will be charged with perpetuating stereotypes.

"Secular therapists have to recognize that some people will choose their faith over their sexuality."

Like every man who keeps it in his pants when he feels like taking what is being shoved in his face by the "forward" modern gals.

"Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that do not attempt to change sexual orientation, but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome," the report says.

So even if you want to change, they won't help you.  Nice.

"There's no evidence to say that change therapies work, but these vulnerable people are tempted to try them, and when they don't work, they feel doubly terrified," Glassgold said.

How is this different from any other failure to change behavior one wishes to change?  Oh, that's right.  This one has a loud lobby.

Sexual feelings change all of the time.  Just ask any couple that once couldn't keep their hands off of each other, but now hardly ever even touch.

An evangelical psychologist, Mark Yarhouse of Regent University, praised the APA report for urging a creative approach to gay clients' religious beliefs but - like Chambers - disagreed with its skepticism about changing sexual orientation.

Yarhouse and a colleague, Professor Stanton Jones of Wheaton College, will be releasing findings at the APA meeting Friday from their six-year study of people who went through Exodus programs. More than half of 61 subjects either converted to heterosexuality or "disidentified" with homosexuality while embracing chastity, their study said.

No, no... let's pretend it never happens.

The APA task force took as a starting point the belief that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, not a disorder, and that it nonetheless remains stigmatized in ways that can have negative consequences.

In the past, they considered it a disorder.  So either they were wrong then or they are wrong now.  But either way, we know they can be wrong.

The report said the subgroup of gays interested in changing their sexual orientation has evolved over the decades and now is comprised mostly of well-educated white men whose religion is an important part of their lives and who participate in conservative faiths that frown on homosexuality.

Well, of course.  So much of society now celebrates homosexual behavior and advocates it that it seems like the only bastions are religious ones.

Look, if you like engaging in homosexual behavior, I would never try to stop you (uh, except if you try it on me).  But for someone who doesn't want to engage in that behavior, it is wrong to tell them to embrace it when there are people who have changed.

We have seen the shift in homosexuality activism go from "stay out of our lives" to "you must participate in our lives in the manner in which we demand." Strangely, some people say "stay out of my bedroom" at the same time they are demanding to be in the voting booth with me.  My discussion of the "Who cares if two guys want to get married?" argument is over at The Opine Editorials.

Let's look at a couple of letters written to the Los Angeles Times on Obamacare.  Dan Witt of North Hollywood wrote:

The single biggest political phenomenon in the last 30 years is how the right wing of the GOP has been so successful at getting middle-class white voters to enthusiastically endorse policies and leaders who do not have their best interests at heart.

Hey Dan - you know who has my best interests at heart?  Me!  But you appear to be one of those people who want to centralize power with federal government officials, Democrats in particular, who claim to have my best interests at heart.  I support limiting government power so that I can continue to pursue my best interests.

Sure, person "A" may financially benefit if a government program is put in place that takes money by force from person "B" and gives it to person "A".  You know what tends to happen then?  People stop being person B and become more like person A - less productive and more dependent.  That is not in the best interest of progress.

Diane Welch of Cypress wrote:

The answer to the question of whether or not there will be a government plan was stated very clearly: "The government plan faces opposition from some who fear it could ultimately drive private insurers out of business." There it is!

Since when has competition been a bad thing?

You really don't see a problem with a "competition" that has the referee as one of the players?

Insurance companies do not have to go out of business; they should just make themselves better. All they have to do is reduce their tremendous overhead and stop catering to their shareholders by making generous profits.

It is the primary role of businesses to make a profit for their owners.  That is their motivation for providing a product or service and serving customers. There are already plenty of charities, and you're free to start another one or give more to an existing one.  If the insurance companies are really making such generous profits, then perhaps you should be a shareholder and enjoy some of those earnings.

You're right - insurance companies do not have to go out of business simply because there is a government program.  But those companies will go out of business if Obamacare forces more and more people into to the "public option".  Private schools still exist, although maybe they wouldn't if any time a student moved, they had to give up private schooling and go into a public school, and their tuition had an additional tax to fund public schools.  Yes, private schools still exist but the public schools need more and more money to run, and aren't doing such a great job in general.  Why will Obamacare be different?

There is no right to health care.

There is no right to insurance.

These people calling for more government involvement in insurance and health care are like someone complaining that a wall is light beige when it is supposed to be painted white.  Applying grey paint didn't help, and now they want to apply scarlet paint.  Free markets don't mean everyone is always going to be happy.  But they are the most efficient way of meeting demand and promoting innovation and efficiency. We should be moving towards a freer market in this area, not a more centralized, planned program.

Previously: Rights Are Not Hand-Outs, and Hand-Outs Are Not Rights

I find it sad, yet somewhat laughable, that there are plenty of Leftists out there who dismiss any person objecting to Obamacare as pawns or outright stooges of insurance companies.  Do they really think that we couldn't possibly have legitimate concerns and objections based on our own personal interests?

I love liberty.

I like being able to make decisions for myself.

I want as much control over my own earnings as possible.

I want as little government intrusion into my health care as possible, as long as someone isn't defrauding me.

Although I would prefer my doctor and I to work everything out between us, I'd rather have an insurance company of my choosing make decisions about my care than a federal government official I didn't choose.

Why are these things so alien to some Leftists?

As I have said before, most organizations supporting Obamacare believe they will be given some advantage through Obamacare that they don't have now, or they think by offering their public support they have a chance of getting some relief from the restrictions and confiscations in the legislation.  Socialists support Obamacare on ideological grounds.  Most health care providers or related organizations that publicly support Obamacare think or know that they can manipulate the legislation or resulting system to their advantage, at the expense of rivals or competitors.

I have a confession to make.  I discriminate.  And I'm not the least bit ashamed of doing so.

I explain what I mean over at The Opine Editorials.

A drugged-up maniac used his daughter as a human shield in a shootout with SWAT officers.  Both ended up dead.  The mother of the toddler sued over the police actions.  The L.A. County Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu threw out the lawsuit against the City of L.A. before a jury could get it - before closing arguments in the case were presented.  Victoria Kim has the Los Angeles Times article.

Attorneys for Lorena Lopez, mother of 19-month-old Suzie Pena, argued in the trial that officers should have retreated and negotiated further with Raul Pena, who was delirious on alcohol, cocaine and methamphetamine and holding his daughter hostage in the office of his car dealership on July 10, 2005.

Police shouldn't even have guns, tasers, or clubs.  They should all have flowers and pot and acoustic guitars and tambourines, so they can sing hippie songs and bring peace and calm that way?

The city contended in trial that officers attempted the rescue in the best tactical way possible, and that the baby's father was the only one to blame for her death because he chose to repeatedly hold her as a shield during the hours-long standoff.

And who thought this would be a good guy to make babies with?  Oh, that's right.  Lorena Lopez.

City Atty. Carmen Trutanich, who was being interviewed by The Times when a deputy city attorney came into his office to announce the news, jumped from his chair with a cheer and high-fived the lawyer, saying millions of city dollars had been in jeopardy.

Unfortunately, this moment was photographed and published online, and he's drawing lots of criticism for celebrating when there is a dead toddler.  The reality though, is that the toddler has been dead for years.  He's celebrating a favorable court decision.

"This is a case where nobody wins except the citizens, because no one should have been sued in this case," said Trutanich, who spent four hours vetting the evidence with the city's legal team before it went to trial.

It's an important victory for Trutanich, who is a newly installed City Attorney.

Lopez, who worked cleaning houses to provide for her four children, said Pena appeared calm and normal, even though they had had a fight the night before and she had filed a police report. Within a few hours, he emerged from his used-car dealership holding Suzie in one arm and firing at officers with the other.

Father of the year?

Police surrounded the block as Pena threatened to kill everybody, referring to himself as Tony Montana from the movie "Scarface."

Police officers successfully rescued Lopez's older daughter Ilsy, who was trapped in the dealership in the midst of gunfire.

You know, that's the first I’ve heard about that.  Kudos to those officers.

But when they entered the building mistakenly believing Pena had been shot down, a barrage of gunfire was exchanged and Suzie was killed by a gunshot between her eyes from a high-velocity rifle.

Sad.  Very, very sad.  It’s a shame that cops are put into such a horrible position, where any mistake can mean death and loss of career, and even doing things right means psychological scars and extreme scrutiny.

I can't imagine losing a toddler like that.  It must be unbearable.  But it isn't the fault of the officers, and the taxpayers should not have to pay.

If you are concerned about your carbon footprint or otherwise are certain that human beings are dooming the planet with our use of fossil fuels, and you use that as a reason not to have kids (or kill your kids in the womb), or to have fewer kids than you'd otherwise desire to have... Go right ahead and get your ovaries removed or undergo vasectomies.  We don't need people like you raising more of the next generation anyway.

Just remember that "reproductive rights" are a superduperprecedent, so you can't limit how many children the rest of us have.  And I know you're counting on control of academia and media in the hopes of brainwashing my children with your foolishness, but I am inoculating them against your idiotic notions.  You know what inoculations are, right?  They are those things you think are causing all of your mental illnesses and health problems.

Thank you.

I could really go for some spotted owl roasted over redwood.  Mmmmm.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that it can be demonstrated that Obama's birth disqualifies him from serving as President.

What then?

Someone still has to take action.  Does SCOTUS?  Does Congress?  Does a Democrat-controlled Congress initiate the impeachment process?

What if it can't be demonstrated that Vice President Joe Biden did anything wrong in connection with this?  Does that mean that Obama is removed and Biden becomes President?  (If Biden is removed as well, doesn't that make Pelosi President?)

Are Obama's actions - the bills he signed into law, the Executive Orders he issued - automatically invalidated, only to have Biden or Pelosi restore them?

Does anyone really believe that Obama is going to be removed, and that it will end up making a difference?

I just don't see it.

What I do see are actions that Congress and the President are taking that I find to be troubling, and I would like to see more resources directed at countering or mitigating those things - offering credible alternatives.  Card check, Obamacare, bailouts, porkulous, cash for clunkers, cap & tax, shamnesty... the general expansion of federal government... these are things we can fight against and make a difference.

We need to make the most of our time.

Can someone from the Left please explain this to me?

If your policies would guarantee me a nice home in a nice area (affordable housing units in higher-end developments), food, excellent medical care, recreation and entertainment (parks, beaches, libraries, bike trails, museums/cultural centers), transportation, and a good education for my children all the way through a university...

...whether I have a job of not...

...why should I work?

If your policies guarantee me a "living wage" and a well-funded retirement regardless of what kind of job I have, why should I strive to advance, to innovate, to work hard, to save for the future?

Would it be purely out of a sense of patriotism as "citizen of the world"?

Do you really think things would work out this way, with everyone getting all of these things?  If so, why do you think things would work out this way here and now when they haven't worked out when tried before?  What were the problems with those earlier attempts at utopia that wouldn't be a factor this time around?

The Los Angeles Times, that great theological journal, continues to cover the homosexuality advocacy within the Episcopal Church.  As if there was any doubt, their editorial board makes it clear that they are very happy.

But its recent pronouncements indicating support for openly gay bishops and church blessings for same-sex couples will have reverberations beyond that church, beyond Christianity and even beyond religion.

Most likely it will mean fewer members for the liberal churches and more fighting within the Anglican denominations.

For all the theological issues it raises, acceptance of gays and lesbians at the altar reflects -- and affects -- the campaign for equality in the larger society.

There is a slight of hand being used here.  My church accepts homosexual people.  It does not condone, let alone celebrate, homosexual behavior.  There is a difference.

One resolution calls for a "renewed pastoral response from this church, and for an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same-gender relationships."

Yes, but based on what?  Certainly not anything in the Bible or in church tradition.

The other affirms that God has called gays and lesbians to "any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church."

Again, based on what?  Warm and fuzzy feelings from the members voting on the matter?

Actually, Episcopalians already have seen an acrimonious parting of the ways between the national church and bishops and faithful who have aligned themselves with churches in Africa and South America that have more conservative (and in some cases crude) views about human sexuality.

It is crude to believe that sex is for marriage?

One could dismiss the fissure in the Anglican Communion as a purely internal matter that turns on theological issues of little import to non-Anglicans or non-Christians, such as whether the church's policy toward homosexuality should be guided by Jesus' seeming lack of interest in the subject or the condemnations of homosexuality in the Old Testament and the writings of St. Paul.

This argument from silence on the part of Jesus is ridiculous.  The assumption of Jesus' day among religious authorities and the faithful was that sex was for marriage, marriage united the sexes, and any sexual activity with someone other than your spouse was a sin.  If Jesus challenged such notions, then it is far more likely that would have been noted in writings more than some of the other things actually recorded.  After all, Jesus did challenge some notions of those in authority and common notions, and it was recorded.  However, what is recorded is that Jesus affirmed what we call the Old Testament as the Word of God.

They go on to equate this homosexuality advocacy push in the denomination with ordaining women, before finishing with...

Supporters of Proposition 8 weren't the only ones to cloak prejudice with piety.

Who is prejudging?  It takes a bride and a groom to make marriage.  If we want our state marriage licensing to reflect that, we are not prejudging.  The church is not to affirm and celebrate sinful behavior.  That is not prejudging.

Duke Helfand has more than one version of his story on the latest actions within the church posted online.  This is the shorter (earlier) version.  And here's the blog entry.

Episcopal Church leaders in Los Angeles today nominated an openly gay priest and an openly lesbian priest as bishops, becoming one of the first dioceses in the national church to test a controversial new policy that lifted a de facto ban on gays and lesbians in the ordained hierarchy.

The nominations of the Rev. John L. Kirkley of San Francisco and the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool of a Baltimore-based diocese are likely to further inflame theological conservatives in the U.S. church and their global partners in the Anglican Communion, who have repeatedly warned about the repercussions of such action.

The two are among six nominees who will face election for two assistant bishop posts at the diocese's annual December convention in Riverside.

I want to know when "open" atheists will get a fair shake in being put into positions of power and leadership in the church.

In addition to Kirkley and Glasspool, the other nominees are: the Rev. Canon Diane M. Jardine Bruce of St. Clement's by-the-Sea Episcopal Church in San Clemente; the Rev. Zelda M. Kennedy of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena; the Rev. Irineo Martir Vasquez of St. George's Episcopal Church in Hawthorne; and the Rev. Silvestre E. Romero of St. Philip's Episcopal Church in San Jose.

The action in Los Angeles followed a similar decision Saturday by leaders in the Diocese of Minnesota, who nominated a partnered lesbian as bishop. The Rev. Bonnie Perry is rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Chicago and an adjunct professor at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Ill. Her longtime partner is a priest in the church.

On the one hand, I think it is kind of silly the paper keeps giving this so much attention.  On the other hand, I like how it helps warn those who are looking for a church.

One of the main purposes of a Christian church is to make disciples who will grow in their walk with Jesus.  Part of this involves repenting of sin - which means that although you may still struggle with it, you no longer call it right.  These people appear to be treating the church like a social club that also happens to be a charity.  The Bible clearly teaches that sex is for marriage (believe me, I've looked for a way around that) and that marriage is something that unites the sexes.  Any sexual behavior with someone other than your spouse is sinful.

Some people have a rather lame retort to these truths, citing other teachings in the Old Testament that they don't like or seem strange today, forgetting that some things are given in the Bible to a specific person or people for a certain time and with certain conditions.  Other things are given to all and reaffirmed as lasting.  One of the lasting things that applies to all is that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes.  No church that uses the Bible as Scripture should be affirming, let along celebrating, homosexual behavior, or fornication, or adultery.  It doesn't matter how depraved the surround culture gets.  If anything, the church should be doing more to defend and promote morality the more the culture deviates from it.

As for the editorial writers and other homosexuality advocates - they don't really believe the Bible has any authority, though they may cite passages here and there that they like.  The worldview being used appears to be one that is not Christocentric, but rather focused on their own personal feelings and tastes.

Church membership in our country is strictly voluntary.  It is too bad that the homosexuality advocates couldn't stick with churches that seem to have been expressly created for unrepentant homosexuality participants ("metropolitan").  Perhaps more Episcopalians need to think about finding another church, or realigning their congregation with Bible-affirming Anglican organizations.  If the church is willing to abandon the Bible on this matter, what will be next?

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason discusses marriage neutering. (Audio)