To Disagree Agreeably

Apparently, the last post chapped someone's behind. There was a private e-mail from a Gentle Reader in my inbox, expressing a vehement disdain for Senator Obama, and bringing a few ideas to mind.

While the Gentle Reader is more than welcome to his opinion, we would appreciate the moment to respond to a couple of the descriptions.

We were bothered by some graphic characterizations of Senator Obama's intelligence, and the intelligence of others who subscribe to a liberal or progressive political philosophy. All discussions are welcome here, but please extend the courtesy that you would expect for yourself and your beliefs to those with whom you disagree.

With regard to your concerns about the Defense of Marriage Act, we reserve the right to disagree with you. It is not so much an issue of gay rights as it is an issue of religious freedom. If Government can define Marriage, then Government can define Baptism, (or Communion/Holy Supper, Confirmation/Bar Mitzvah, Last Rites/Anointing, Gifts of the Spirit, etc.)

Government occupying itself with concerns which are more the province of a faith community hogs up debate time which can be devoted to concerns which are enumerated under the Constitution, as well as pressing issues of importance to the economy. The time dedicated to denying legal sanction would be better spent addressing issues of security and energy.

If my marriage is threatened by a relationship between consenting adults becoming recognized by government, my marriage has a lot more problems than that. The right of inheritance and survivorship is something that should not be denied to any citizen on the basis of sexual orientation. Likewise, no faith community should be compelled to recognize a union which runs counter to its holy text.

These are two separate interests, which have at most a peripherical relationship. A government which cannot extend equal rights for all of its citizens may condemn itself to being unable to extend rights for any citizen.

With regard to energy policy, which the Gentle Reader also mentioned, The McCain policy which only talks to offshore-and specifically not ANWR-drilling is at best inadequate, and at worst myopic. The Obama plan is deeply concentrated on renewable energy, a point which is reflected in discourse by Conservative oilman T. Boone Pickens. It also accounts for the continued need for fossil fuels, which contrasts profoundly with the near silence from the McCain campaign regarding renewable, save for nuclear.

Frankly, the most cogent discussion of energy this political season came from Paris Hilton: We need all of it. Every idea, all American ingenuity must be brought to the table. The one who comes closest to the idea is Obama with the explicit goal of eliminating US dependence on imported oil within ten years.

In our representative form of government, the voices in the minority will be heard, even if they are overridden. There is no one who likes the idea of expensive energy, nor is expensive energy viable for any politician in the long term. Watch for moderate and conservative voices to send the ultra-environmentalists packing in congress, Pelosi be damned.

Finally, the Gentle Reader offered a reference to Obama and William Ayres. While some aspects of the relationship are of concern, it seems that the only sources which have informed the Gentle Reader are found on AM radio talk shows. If one investigates further, one finds that Ayers' contemporaries suggest that Ayres' assertions are either factually inaccurate or self-aggrandizing.

When compounded with evidence which was found by a congressional committee (the 1975 Church Committee, bipartisan) to have been obtained extraconstitutionally, there was no possibility of ever charging Ayres. Whether or not one agrees with Ayres' tactics, the fact remains that if charged, he would be innocent until proven guilty. If the ability to charge a suspect has been undermined by overzealous enforcement tactics, then those who have been let down are the citizens who have paid the enforcers to uphold the constitution.

We agree that Ayres' deserved prosecution in order to answer for his actions in the late sixties and early seventies. At best we have the statements of a man who may or may not have an accurate memory, and a body of evidence which is questionable for its completeness or veracity.

The disagreement that exists, as one may understand, is whether a civil relationship between two individuals, twenty years after the fact, justifies holding the innocent party accountable for acts committed without the innocent party's consent or knowledge. Reason and decency must compel one to say that Obama has zero accountability. Whatever expressions of disagreement or reclaim for Ayres' actions by Obama, have appropriately remained private, as our constitution mandates.

To the Gentle Reader who disagrees with me, your dissenting opinion is welcome, and necessary. Without a challenge, your Wandering Gentile is unable to provide as accurate and thorough rebuttal as the issues deserve. We can disagree all day, but as long as we can agree to be agreeable, it can only improve our discourse.