Obama and the Squirrel

Have you been curious why I obviously like Obama but haven’t committed to vote for either presidential candidate? Or have you just been wondering what I thought about the “town hall” debate? Well if you want answers, you’re about to get them. But first, I better explain about the squirrel . . .

A while back I heard a story about a farmer with a large tree growing next to his home. One day as he was walking across his yard, he startled a squirrel which scampered up the tree and disappeared into a hole in its trunk. The farmer had never noticed the hole before, and he paused to take a closer look. His inspection revealed that the interior of tree was hollow and rotten, and that discovery presented him with two unpleasant options.

On the one hand, tearing down the tree would be a huge hassle and he was reluctant to give up its beauty and shade. On the other hand, if he left the weakened tree standing a strong wind might break it apart, possibly harming his family and damaging his home. One option would certainly deprive him of some things he valued; the other might cost him everything that mattered most to him. As he considered his difficult choice, the farmer muttered, "I wish I'd never seen that squirrel."

Hold that thought. I’ll come back to it . . .

The recent “town hall” presidential debate had a big impact on me. I felt that both candidates held their own on foreign affairs, but their discussion of domestic issues was more one-sided. While McCain had plenty to say about his foreign policy views, in the domestic sphere he seemed to spend most of his time making canned campaign statements and attacking Obama. It especially irked me when McCain made some particularly scathing remarks about his opponent’s economic plan when (due to the debate format) Obama would not have an opportunity to respond in his own defense.

While McCain seemed more intent on slamming his rival than presenting his own views, Obama seemed absolutely driven to share his ideas and explain how they could benefit people. I loved the fact that he had something of substance to say, and clear plans that he was eager to share. He was also more likely to actually answer questions rather than launching into some unrelated political diatribe, and he was willing to set concrete goals (e.g. reform social security in his first term, freedom from oil within ten years).

As I listened to him, I thought, “Wow. This candidate is actually talking to my brain instead of trying to strike fear into my gut. He’s passionate about explaining his ideas rather than obscuring them, and the more he discusses them the more I like them. I want to vote for this man!!!!”

Enter the squirrel.

At this point there is only one thing keeping me from deciding to vote for Obama, and it isn’t abortion. As I’ve previously stated, I think both candidates share my belief that education is the best way decrease the number of abortions in our country, and I feel that the principles Obama advocates are a good balance of teaching abstinence and respect for intimacy while addressing the fact that not all students will embrace those ideals.

No, the issue that troubles me is barely on people’s radar screen in most of the country, but it weighs heavily on my mind here in California, where the state supreme court recently overturned a traditional marriage statute that 61% of state voters approved. In November we will vote on Proposition 8, which would amend our state constitution to declare: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The current heated debate about allowing same-gender marriage has made me study and consider this issue more than I ever had before, and the prospect of legalizing such unions really concerns me from both a religious and sociological point of view.

Each of those perspectives could be a lengthy post in its own right (and probably will be at some point), but in a nutshell—whether you take your cues from religion, sociology, or evolution—marriage is between two complementary beings (a male and a female), whose distinct parenting styles potentially provide the best environment for rearing children. A same-gender union, however loving, does not meet either of those criteria and therefore does not fit the definition of marriage.

Opponents of Prop 8 insist that its supporters are trying to force their beliefs on others. In actuality, both sides are fighting for their beliefs about marriage and what is best for our society. However, supporters of traditional marriage have millennia of history and copious sociological evidence to show that heterosexual marriage is an effective foundation for society.

By contrast, proponents of same-gender marriage are proposing a radical social experiment, with virtually no evidence to back their claim that redefining the fundamental unit of our society will have a positive or even neutral impact. They’re essentially asking us to have faith in their unproven opinion. Frankly, if they want me to support a radical change to the family, which has an enormous impact on every individual’s entire life and destiny, they’re going to have to offer me a lot more than their opinion that the effects will be positive.

Some say that this debate is about providing equal rights to everyone, and I couldn’t agree more. The thing is, California Family Code 297.5 already guarantees homosexual domestic partnerships the exact same rights as heterosexual marriages, and that will not change if Prop 8 passes. The only rights actually at stake are those of people who disagree with homosexual marriage – free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from having a homosexual agenda imposed on our kids at school through lessons and field trips. Opponents of Prop 8 insist these rights will not be threatened, but troubling precedents are already being set here, in Massachusetts, and elsewhere.

Now back to McCain and Obama . . .

In some ways, they take a similar stance on this issue. Both declare that marriage is between a man and a woman. Both voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006, insisting that the definition of marriage should be left to individual states. Unfortunately, the similarities end there.

In 2006 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which stated that if some states allow same-gender marriage, other states and the federal government are not bound to honor those marriages. McCain voted for the bill; Obama voted against it on the grounds that it was discriminatory, and says as president he would support efforts to repeal it. Even if he only repeals the federal aspect of it, I worry that would create a slippery slope toward forcing all the states to recognize a few states' redefinition of marriage.

What’s more, when Proposition 8 was placed on California’s ballot this year, McCain expressed his support for it while Obama declared that "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states." What is divisive about inviting a state’s population to define marriage once and for all? Would it be more fair and unifying for us to stand idly by while the state supreme court tells 61% of Californian voters that they are ignorant bigots unfit to set state policy? I thought Obama supported democracy, not oligarchy.

As for his potential influence on the national stage, some of my friends have made the argument that there is little a president can actually do to impact this issue. While it is true that he cannot singlehandedly pass laws or make Supreme Court rulings, he does have three powerful tools at his disposal: 1) His high profile, 2) His veto, 3) Judges he recommends for the Supreme Court.

When a president proposes new legislation, that proposal gets a lot more attention than an average senator doing the same. What’s more, if Obama is elected he will be working with a Democrat-controlled Congress. If President Obama proposes, say, a reversal of DOMA, he’s more likely to get a positive response from the current Congress than he would have from the Republican one that passed the bill two years ago. Furthermore, while President McCain would likely veto such a reversal (and any other bills he found threatening to state sovereignty on same-gender marriage or homosexual adoption), President Obama would sign them with gusto and hail them as blows to discrimination.

As for the Supreme Court, one of the most lasting legacies any president leaves behind is his appointments to that body. As a Californian, I’ve watched a single high court decision reverse both the voice of the people and millennia of tradition about what marriage means. Since Obama apparently feels that the traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory, I’m concerned about what kind of judges he might appoint (with the approval of the Democratic Congress). By contrast, considering McCain’s stance on marriage and the fact that he is a staunch opponent of abortion, I doubt he would recommend any judge who takes a liberal view on those subjects.

.

So there’s my dilemma. How many things must I admire about Obama before I can ignore the fact that he wants to redefine the fundamental unit of our society, which has a greater and more lasting influence on our life and destiny than economics, diplomacy, or any other factor? Am I willing to take the risk that he really won’t have any impact on this issue? If he does back legislation or appoint judges that undermine the traditional family, will any of the things I respected about him remotely compensate for that?

Sigh.

I know my individual vote will not sway the presidential election in California or the nation as a whole, yet the decision will make matters a lot to me. It’s a statement of where I stand, and where my priorities lie. If I vote against Obama, I’ll also be voting against good character, lots of sound ideas, and so many other things that I value. Yet, if I vote for him, I will feel partly responsible if he takes action against the institution that matters most to me. Which is why I will most likely vote for McCain on November 4.

I wish I’d never seen that squirrel.