Let's Not Talk About Sex

I’m a bit fed up with all of this talk about sex. Have we become a nation fascinated with knowing who’s doing who and how long they have been doing it? What does it mean when the National Enquirer becomes the model for investigative reporting?

What happened to the days when the Enquirer was a joke, and the only people who read it were those suckered into believing Michael Jackson’s chimpanzee is his second cousin from Mars and Janice is a reincarnated elephant. When John Edward’s got busted by the Enquirer it set journalism back 50 years. Why? Because those representing credible journalism are too scared to talk about sex after coming after John McCain.

You may remember how the New York Times crucified McCain for an alleged affair with a lobbyist. The story painted McCain as a hypocrite for advocating for campaign reform while doing the horizontal hooky poky with a lobbyist. The McCain camp lashed back, and the story didn’t stick. Instead of backing out of his presidential bid, McCain was vindicated for what appeared to be a story printed void of the facts.

It didn’t matter that there was the appearance of numerous conflicts of interest. It didn’t matter that people within the McCain camp had approached him about the rumors that were circulating. It didn’t matter that McCain had been caught crossing the line before, and that he had a previous affair after his wife’s automobile accident. The New York Times was forced to apologize while McCain moved closer to securing the nomination.

The Time couldn’t get it right, but the National Enquired did. The most credible news outlet in the nation was slapped on the hand, while the model for tabloid journalism wins the prize for breaking the biggest story of the election year. Something is wrong folks.

Bob Wilson, my former editor at the Herald-Sun, chided the News & Observer for failing to go after the Edwards story. Many have assumed that members of the press knew enough to investigate Edwards. People were talking, and the Enquire was bold enough to go after the story. Maybe the News & Observer, the New York Times and the other reputable news organizations were too scared to come after Edwards after the Times messed up with McCain.

Which brings me back to my original point-I’m fed up with all of this talk about who’s screwing who. I’m pissed at it all because the jerks that get caught should have enough self-control to keep their private parts in their pants. I understand human weakness. I suspect that it gets hard spending all of those hours on the road, and that you need to release every now and then. I’m no prude. I get it. I really do, but isn’t the job important enough to refrain from doing what you desire in the heat of the moment?

Or, has the game of politics all become a game? I brought into the cheesy story of the Edwards going to Wendy’s to celebrate their freaking wedding anniversary. I heard the violins when Elizabeth stood by her man after being diagnosed with cancer. I looked past the $400 haircuts and the big house outside of Chapel Hill. I even forgave Edwards for giving up his Senate seat after we fought hard to get him in office. I forgave the drive that led him to run for President after one term opening the way for Elizabeth Dole to take his place.

I hate this talk about sex because of the lies that come with it all. Tell us the truth about your marriages. Don’t hide the truth! Trust us with your lives so that we can get back to the business of voting for people based on the issues rather than wasting time in an attempt to read between the lines of bull you feed us. Tell us that you have a woman on the side and two or three more on each coast to fill in the gaps when sweet thang can’t show up.

Get past playing games with our emotions! Go ahead. Trust us with your mess! Tell us you stay with her because she’s the mother of your children but the flame has died out. Tell us you desire a younger woman, you are going through a midlife crisis and you have a sports car tucked away in a remote place. Tell us your marriage is a joke, and you’re too scared to take the risk of leaving because you want the freaking job.

It’s a sad day folks. The National Enquirer broke this story because America is tired of all of this talk about sex. It happens so often that we can’t keep up with all the sex scandals, and The New York Times isn’t willing to take the risk.

It sure would be nice to have a conversation about public policy.

The Democratic Candidate Debate: Gay Rights Takes Center Stage

Here we go again. The hot topic during the most recent Democratic Presidential debate was gay rights. It’s safe to say that the concerns that led to the election of George Dub during the last Presidential election were those that forced people to deal with their deep seeded religious convictions. Namely, John Kerry’s seemingly liberal views on abortion and gay rights were too much for many Americans to deal with.

The recent debate proves that these presidential wanna be’s are grappling to find a way to say what most intelligent people are willing to acknowledge-that the constitution protects a persons right to have a relationship with whomever they wish. Given the assumption that part of living in a nation that safeguards the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” of every person residing in America; it’s effortless to conclude that part of what that means is related to ones relationship.

The gay rights issue becomes convoluted when thrust within the political arena. What makes it problematic isn’t so much about law, but more about what it takes to get elected to the highest office in the land. In other words, sad to say, most Americans aren’t ready to embrace a president willing to hang out at a gay rally. Despite the progress made, far too many Americans are homophobic and unwilling to consider the underlying issues that have gays and lesbians pressing for equal rights.

At the root of this political diatribe is the bearing evangelical Christianity plays in molding a divisive agenda. There are two issues related to the amalgamation of public policy and religion. The first begs us to regard the significance of the warning embedded within the Constitution-the marriage of Church and State will ultimately lead to the refutation of other faith claims. America is, and has always been, a union of varied theological voices. This is the strength of any democratic society, and to impose a theological construct above others at the expense of a segment of society forces a rethinking of our melting pot dreams.

The Democratic presidential candidates ranted on their justification for opposing same-sex marriage. Senator Barrack Obama, who supports only civil unions, cited the need to “disentangle” the issue of legal rights for gay couples from what “has historically been the issue of the word marriage, which has religious connotations to some people.”

John Edwards cited his Christian faith as a reason for his opposition to same-sex marriage. He stressed that his campaign is “about equality across the board,” while admitting that his position on civil unions “stops short of real equality. It makes perfect sense to me that people would feel that way.”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said it was a mistake that she failed to do more to condemn the recent comments of a top military officer who said that homosexuality is immoral. Clinton angered gay supporters when she appeared to dodge questions about the remark.

The three front runners are functioning in a way reminiscent of the good ole boys in ole Dixie during the heat of the Civil Rights era The maligned of society must be sacrificed for political gain. Given the detestation toward gays felt by evangelical Christians and an overwhelming majority of African Americans, it’s best to do what they did in the old South, discount the agenda of the minority in favor of being elected.

By affirming their individual faith above the rights of the discarded, these candidates have proven their inability to stand above the political fray to protect the rights of those with a position that defers from that in the mainstream. What America needs is leadership enamored with doing the right thing, even when it may lead to being abandoned by the masses.

Now for issue number two. Not only does this issue beg for a deep conversation on what it means to promote a clear separation of Church and State, it also is screaming for the Church to engage in a critical rethinking of its long held position related to homosexuality.

In 2002, I wrote a column for the Herald-Sun (Durham, NC) challenging churches to deliberate on new ways to confront homosexuality. The solution I proposed was for faith communities to hold conversations with gays and lesbians who share the same faith claims. I informed my readers that gays and lesbians are attending their churches. Rather than deny their presence, why not have a chat around the issues they have, and, in the process, give those on the other side space to discuss how they feel about having gays and lesbians as part of their congregation.

This simple solution led to my termination from the church. Yes, there were other issues that caused the members to turn their back on the pastor who helped transform the church into one of the largest and most vital ministries in the city. With that being said, it’s safe to conclude that the prevalent concern was my desire to embrace gays and lesbians. More than my divorces (yes there were two). More than my dating before the divorce from my second wife was final. More than the ordaining of a single female who was pregnant. More than any of that, the congregation was incensed that I was willing to love, embrace and support gays and lesbians void of a demand that they change before entering those pearly gates.

What is the lesson? Leadership requires sacrifice. I’m looking for a president willing to lose it all for the sake of the higher good. The secret to change are leaders who stand above the common voice. I’m still looking.

This bunch has a lot to learn.