If there are two things I like in this world, it is 1.) skinny, blonds with no boobs, and 2.) being right. Rarely do these two collide in one glorious moment for me. But God Bless Carrie Prejean they did.

If you don't know by now, Carrie Prejean dropped her liable and slander case against the Miss USA Pageant because allegedly she was shown a tape of her that was acquired by TMZ performing "a graphic sex act by herself" that was "so graphic, even TMZ wouldn't post it."

Details have since surfaced that the solo act was recorded by her then boyfriend when she was a teenager. How TMZ got it, nobody seems to know.

As you may recall, I wrote about Carrie back in May saying that her situation illustrates why no one takes the "Pro-Family" movement seriously.

She makes one blanket statement about being against gay marriage in a beauty pageant, and all the sudden she is a champion for family values. But after the release of information about her boob-job, then underage sexy lingerie photos, then topless photos, and now a sex tape, many in the pro-family camp are now questioning their pick for <sarcasm>2009 Family-Values Champion of the Year Award</sarcasm>

But as pro-family organizations drop her faster than they can count their gay friends, my opinion of her hasn't changed. I was not in the camp that condemned her from the get go (even though I support gay marriage). Nor was I in the camp that lifted her up as a bastion of family values.

She was (and is) an attractive young woman, who got put on the spot with an unfair and divisive question, and she did the best she could to be honest with where she stood. What proceeded was not fair on many levels. She got judged harshly by the pro-gay lobby. She got elevated to a level of leadership she was not equipped for on the pro-family lobby. And all of her past transgressions were now viewed through her statement which is not only unfair, but also, not really relevant.

Now there are no sex tapes of me out there (so you can stop looking as I know you all are). But that makes me no worse or better than Carrie. And frankly, none of us are worse or better than Carrie. We all do stupid things we regret. We all make mistakes. Does that mean we should all be in leadership positions in lobbying groups? Absolutely not. But that does mean she should be treated with the same grace you would want to be treated with.

Will I read her book? Probably not. Would I put her on a board of directors? Probably not. Would I take her on a date? Probably. But none of these answers have anything to do with anything that has happened since the pageant.

This should serve as one more example of where we all can take a lesson in not being so quick to judge or elevate.

What I am about to write should be viewed through the lens that I am a.) pro-life, and b.) support full equality for homosexuals and their relationships. I know most will find this an odd juxtaposition given the modern dialogue in politics, but you can read other posts as to why I feel this is right.

With that said, I think I found the the one thing that both of these often divisive groups can agree on: politicians really don't give a damn about either issue and are only feeding the division to get/stay elected.

Last week I was watching Barack Obama's Human Rights Campaign speech where he made the comment:

Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it's important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community.

He continues on, admitting he hasn't done much to help gay equality, and throws the gay community a bone about ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (which should be ended), and promises to move the ball forward and for them not to lose heart. They've got a friend in Barack Obama.

How similar this is to George W. Bush (or Bush Sr, or Reagan) who promised to be a friend to the "pro-life" community, but what real work did they do for it? Enacted Mexico City? Appointed a pro-life Supreme Court Justice? Please! Just small bones that makes it look like action is taking place, but not really doing anything about it.

Well here's the dirty little secret that nobody in Washington or the media or the average American public want to admit: as a whole, neither political party cares about either one of these issues.

Sure Barney Frank cares as an individual politician cares about gay equality. And sure, Randy Forbes individually cares about protecting the unborn. But individuals don't change anything in Washington.

I said it back in October of last year that I didn't mind voting for Barack Obama despite him being extremely pro-choice because I was sick of abortion being a "wedge" issue / single-issue vote the Republicans knew they could motivate their base around. An October later I am saying the same thing about the gay equality issue, and wondering how long it will take those to realize the Democrats are doing the same thing.

The Democrats are no more a friend to the gay equality issue than the Republicans are to the abortion issue. It is all about getting and maintaining power. That's it. And until we put term limits on Congress and/or vote Congress out as easily as we vote them in, nothing is going to change.

So here's the question I pose to both: when are we going to stop being single issue voters that vote the party line when the party line isn't doing jack squat about what they claim to believe in so boldly.

By now I am pretty sure everyone has heard of Carrie Prejean - aka "Miss California" - aka "The Girl Who Got Figuratively Bitch Slapped by Perez Hilton Regarding Gay Marriage."

We did a show on it. CNN has covered it. MSNBC ridiculed it. FoxNews has offered her a job. And I hear her and James Dobson are dating. Ok, those last two might be made up (or ARE they?)

Yet nobody made the statement that I have been from the very beginning: Carrie Prejean is the reason nobody takes the anti-Gay Marriage movement seriously.

Before - did I mention before - TheDirty.com released this photo of a 17 18-year old Prejean modeling for some awesome panties, I had a conversation with my brother about how this Miss USA situation is a joke and perfectly illustrates the irrelevancy of the anti-Gay marriage movement.

Then when TheDirty.com released the photo to the right all I could think of was: YES!

Now I don't take any issue with the photo. Future wife: please use Carrie as "clothing" inspiration. But then again, I freely admit I am liberal when it comes to "modesty." I also know I am liberal when it comes to Gay Marriage (reference: this post).

But two questions come to the surface:

1.) Am I the only one who thinks her boobs were better before the implants?

2.) Why are the religious right "excited" to have her as a spokeswoman?

As stated before, I think gay marriage should be legal because we don't illegalize divorce and pornography. Two things that are equally as "Biblically morally wrong" as homosexuality. And the fact that we scream at the top of our lungs about one, and not the others, makes us worse than hypocrites, it makes us irrelevant. And not irrelevant in the trendy way hipster Churches talk about being relevant. I mean irrelevant in that nobody gives a damn what we have to say not just about homosexuality - but about anything.

But I tell you the real tragedy in this whole situation is that The Associated Baptist Press - yes The Associated Baptist Press - had the best article I have read on this issue. Not per se because I agree with the conclusion, but for at least questioning the absurdity of the situation.

And even after Prejean has come out and apologized for the shoot, saying she regrets doing it and won't do it again, I have to think: who cares? Why? Because this isn't about her. It is about us!

The Church's mission will not return to it's key mission of creating disciples of Jesus Christ until our interaction with the world we live in is a consistent one.

It was six years ago I came to the same conclusion Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer - two law school professors at Pepperdine Law School - recently came to in a San Francisco Chronicle article that was picked up by Time. Conclusion: the government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business.

The truth of the matter is that marriage licenses weren't required until the early 1900s in (successful?) attempts to keep black people from marrying white people. It wasn't until Loving v. Virginia in 1967 where the Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional - but unfortunately the government's authority of marriages stuck around.

I have said it before but the government should only have two roles: 1.) protect us from others - including things like physical harm (murder, rape, etc...) and all other forms of harm (financial laws, contract disputes, etc...) - 2.) do that only which the government can do (build highways, defend the country, etc...).

Sanctioning marriage does not fall into either of those categories.

I am sure someone right now is saying, "ohh but won't someone PLEASE think of the children." And while I would like to say no, frankly, I am sick of thinking about the children, I also realize that isn't going to convince anyone who does "think of the children" of anything. So here's another approach.

I don't think growing up with a mom as a stripper is particularly healthy. I am sure there are some great stripper moms out there, but on the whole, I am going to say that strippers usually do not make good mothers. However, there is nothing illegal about stripping - despite it's questionable morality - thus there is no reason for the government to intervene.

If we take the "think of the children" philosophy of governance, why not make it illegal for strippers to have kids? Or pornographers? Or casino owners? Or politicians? Or anyone else with "questionable" morality.

Likewise, it makes absolutely no moral, legal or logical sense to continue the racist-roots of the Government being involved in the marriage business.

If the government wants to make it easier on families for tax purposes or if they want a method of finding census data, fine, have civil unions for all. All the same benefits - regardless if it is heterosexual or homosexual relationships. There is no second class tier system where the government gives heterosexuals "marriages" and homosexuals "civil unions." In the governments eyes, we are the same.

Let religious organizations hold on to their traditions and vernacular like they have had for thousands of years. Nobody needs to redefine any terms. Marriage becomes a religious ceremony like baptism.

Think how much less contentious this society would be if we could come to that agreement. Conservatives/Religious folks compromising on detheocritizing an already detheocritized government, and Liberals/Gays compromising and letting religions keep their tradition.

No more fighting. No more constant hatred by both parties. We become like most other groups in society where everyone's rights are protected, and we agree to disagree.

Then all we would have to dispute is abortion.

Did you see the most recent attempt of James Dobson trying to prove his political prowess? In a 27 minute segment, Dobson accused Obama of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology." Jon Stewart put it a bit more comedically.



Now I am not a blind follower of Jon Stewart theology. The truth is, the Old Testament and New Testament talk about homosexuality, so the issue can't simply be written off as if Leviticus is the only place this is discussed. And I did listen to Barack's whole speech back in January and it was brilliant.

But I am not here to discuss political speeches or debate Jewish comedian exegesis. What I think needs to be addressed is what I think Dobson's legacy will be: dividing our culture to the point where sincere and loving relationships are impossible except in cases where you agree with every opinion.

This past week I met someone who I thought might be a new friend here in Atlanta. We both shared a huge interest in aviation. So I was excited since most of my friends make fun of my aviation curiosity. I could tell from his Facebook page that he was gay. But didn't think anything of it.

So we started talking online and he instantly wants to know about the radio show I produce. He asks are we right wing. I say nope. We are moderate. Next question, "so do you think all homosexuals are going to hell?" Thank you James Dobson.

I, of course, try and explain my thoughts on the issue; probably not very eloquently. But I could tell, it was a loss cause.

Nevermind that last weekend I said on the air one of the three celebrities I'd like to have coffee with is Ellen DeGeneres.

Nevermind that I have defended gay marriage from a legal perspective in other blogs.

Nevermind that I have had lunch with a porn producer.

Nevermind that I sincerely consider Erik of AllenHuntShowSucks.com a friend and genuinely care for the dude.

Thanks to the Dobsonion worldview, a Bible-believing Christian and a homosexual just can't be friends.

It brings me back a little to high school. There was a gay boy at my high school named Jason (not real name). Jason was a year younger than me, and while I am sure there were other gay individuals at Homestead, he was the only one who was "out." I primarily met Jason because he was good friends with my girlfriend Theresa.

I liked Jason. He was a good guy. I can remember one specific night when I was at the school after 10pm working on the yearbook by myself in the pub room. Jason was there for something related to show choir. I don't know what brought him to the pub room that night, but we had a great conversation. Towards the end, I remember saying, "you know Jason, we aren't very different." To which he replied, "No Andy, I don't think that is the case."

The truth is, most of us aren't very different from one another. We just choose to allow the few differences to get in the way. Thanks James.

Well it is in the news again, so I figured I better comment on it. Like the image to the left of this, Jesus said marriage is between one man and one woman. And I agree with this wholeheartedly. I do believe, the God-honoring, morally acceptable relationships is between a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female that have been bonded in the holy act of matrimony. So thus far, I have all the right-wing conservatives on my side, right?

Well here's where it gets interesting. I support same-sex civil union (whether we call it marriage or not, is just a matter of semantics). Why? Do I think it is right? No. Do I think it is necessarily good for our culture? Probably not. So why do you support this? Because Jesus said...

We recently had Shirley Phelps Roper from the wickedly world famous godhatesfags.com and for organizing the picketing of soldier's funerals on the radio show I produce. I was proud of Allen for sticking up, on theological grounds (which no one else in the Media can do), and saying with a loud voice, you don't speak for us. His point, and I agree with him, is that if you are going to have godhatesfags.com, you need to have godhatesdivorce.com and godhatespornography.com and godhatesstealing.com and godhates-dare I say-gossip.com.

And this is my point with Christians today. We scream, at the top of our lungs that we do not want homosexual marriage on moral grounds, this of course effects 2% of the population. Yet we do nothing to make divorce illegal, which effects 50% of the population. We need to be a consistent "political group" if we are going to be a political group - or else the world will continue laughing at us like they already do. We either need to take the perspective that we are going to be a "God-honoring" government in all aspects of law (including divorce), or concede to the fact that we are not a Christian nation. We will never be a Christian nation. And ultimately God does not call us to enforce a Christian nation, but rather seek change in people's hearts on a one-on-one basis, not through sweeping laws that will force God's law on those who don't want to follow it.

When I was doing my senior thesis on Globalization's effects on the Middle East/West Relationships, I came across an interesting quote that speaks to the dilemma of today's current political environment. This was said by a Muslim friend of Phillip Yancey. "In the Qur'an, I can find nothing to teach us how to be a minority religion, while in the New Testament I can find nothing to teach Christians how to be a majority religion." And that is why I think we are struggling as a political group. The past elections showed that Christianity has a lot of power in this democracy - maybe more than any other single force in this country. Yet Christianity was not founded on these grounds. We were small. We were persecuted. But yet we thrived. If Christianity can thrive in a culture as oppressive to their mission as Rome was before Constantine, I don't think Gay Civil Unions are going to truly be the downfall of Christianity in America.

Jesus said to live righteous and holy lives. Jesus said to turn the other cheek and love your enemies. Jesus said to love our neighbors as ourselves. But ultimately, Jesus said, I give you the choice to do otherwise.