Of course "Catch the Fire Ministries" might condemn this woman for not marrying her partner anyway. In 20 yrs, though, this will all be forgotten. The Europeans and Japanese, who are more culturally advanced, have been accepting modern sexuality and relationships among politicians for a long time. Sarkozy and Berlusconi are the prime examples, but there are less known examples like one of the Scandinavian countries (forget which) having an openly gay Prime Minister.

And of course politicians say a lot of things they don't believe in. There are plenty who believe, but there are just as many (probably more) who just say what they need to say. Because, let's face it, most of us probably believe in some abstract notion of a higher power, but most of these Senators and Congressmen just say the words because it's advantageous. Even the politicans who pretend to be fervent believers rarely act like Christians when the chips are down. Larry Craig was blowing men in bathroom stalls in his private life, but talking about loving his wife and Jesus (and voting against gay rights) in his public life. There are so very many examples.

In other countries that had our level of religiosity/church attendance a generation ago, they've dropped the requirement of religious belief and are electing non religious people, gays, etc. And really, why should it matter? You're electing a Congressman for the supposed purpose of making laws and policy that advance the national interest, not to tell people how to live their lives. There should be no religious test and no need to put on an act, but we're a generation away from that in this country. Obama, a man who rarely went to church in the decade before running for President, had to go to churches more than McCain to "prove" he wasn't a "secret Muslim" because there are so many superstitious dumbs in middle America. Shame on our media and shame on us as a country for making that an "issue" in the campaign.

I would pay to see that

Also, Obama is in church faithfully every Sunday.

wtf. who said it was?

A = the "Western" world

A' = Europe

A'' = Australia

Either you are a complete idiot for misunderstanding the sentence, or you're a complete idiot for genuinely not seeing an axis along which to compare Australia and Europe. Please kindly killself.

Until recently, the US was considered somewhat more progressive* than Australia, but less progressive than Western and Northern Europe**. In the last few years, it seems like Australia (a relatively younger country, demographically) is bypassing the United States.

* you could say "cultured" here, or a few other adjectives

** you could say "Europe" here, but generally Western and Northern Europe are considered especially advanced (with exceptions such as Ireland)

On a separate note, I wish you BLB'ers would make up your mind on whether I'm a far right Rubio-loving lunatic or a secular progressive liberal who hates the Midwest and South. FWIW, I'd say I'm a classical liberal who has biases typical to educated individuals of a certain background. A Bill Maher conservative, who liked Bush I and disliked Bush II, who liked most of Clinton's 2nd term a lot and dislikes most of Obama's 1st term. Bonus tip: Voted for Obama in 2008 general.

Off topic, but one thing that could turn my opinion on Obama would be him having the balls to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Protection Agency. It's a real litmus test into whether he's anything new at all, or just more of the same. See, for example, http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/07/elizabeth-warren.html

At some point I bet a low IQ and psychosis can get you committed.

Edit: Nice edit to make it "my" homosexuality.