In polite company, so the saying goes, refrain from speaking about religion and politics.  The two subjects tend to roil deep ideological divides between friends and peers where none were apparent.  In the interest of political conversation, however, perhaps discussing the two topics is a worthier pursuit than silence, especially when contemplating a candidate's character. 

Does the role of religion in a politician's private life transmute into a dangerous public weapon used against his or her opponents? Or does the candidate's religion materialize into a useful tool with which to frame issues of morality, ethics, values, and judgment? 

Alternately, may a modern politician publicly avoid discussing his or her religion without engendering the mistrust of voters? 

Enter Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California's dual conversations on CNN last Saturday with both presumptive presidential nominees.

His premise at the outset of the forum is that "faith is a worldview."  I think by "faith" Pastor Warren means "Christian faith" and by "worldview" he may mean something closer to an all encompassing mission.  The self-proclaimed "values-voters" (a moniker I only use as shorthand reference, wishing it were something else) often is a one-issue voter.  Want to guess what that one issue tends to be?  The big issue probably does not need to be spelled out, but it has to do with sexuality, as do so many other socially conservative issues. 

So, does a modern presidential candidate hurt his chances of election by emphasizing a worldview that does not include his or her "faith," and more specifically, his or her Christian faith? 

Can there be an agnostic or atheist, or Jewish, president of the future United States?  Or have voters created the need for this type of forum because Christianity is the perennial elephant in the room, so to speak? 

I'm a freak. I admit it. For starters, I'm a Republican. I was a virgin when I got married at age 24. I've never touched alcohol or cigarettes in my entire life. I don't swear. I even drive the speed limit (well, most of the time). See, I told you, I'm a freak. At least compared to the world's standards.

I'm also a Christian who had a gay man and a lesbian as two of my bridesmaids at my wedding. No, I didn't make my gay friend wear a bridesmaid's dress. They were two of my dearest friends and I wanted them to be a part of my special day.

I have quite a few gay and lesbian friends who are celebrating California's court ruling allowing them to legally marry. I'm happy for them. I'm thrilled they have found love and that they want to commit themselves and their life to another person. Love is a beautiful thing, BUT. 

Yes, there's a BUT.  At the same time, I also think that legalizing same-sex marriage is going to take us down a slippery slope for several reasons. While California has been celebrating and everyone on this blog has been blissfully applauding homosexual nuptials, I feel like I'm going to rain on everyone's rainbow parade if I say anything but congratulations. There are several concerns I'd like to bring up in order to play Devil's Advocate... or maybe in this case, Heaven's Advocate. 

Within the next week or two, several good friends are getting married. Some are different sexes, but some are the same sex. Some have known each other for only a few months, while others have been together for over 18 years. It is a happy time, with marriage in the air, and it has me very happy for all who are getting married.

But some don't see this as a sappy time. No, they would prefer to shout in the street about the sanctity of marriage being destroyed from under our feet. In an experiment, despite my support for same-sex marriage, I wish to peruse their side, as well is with my own arguments against them.