Good question ...

Brings up the "What Would Jesus Do?" mantra.

I'll tell ya ... I can't rightly say what Jesus would say, do or "allow" and I am aware and acknowledge the big assumption behind the highly popular notion that Jesus is a judgemental God who surely is giving the high hand of support behind an invisibly divine curtain to those obsessed on a very narrow and preferred morality.

Such is not my assumption and in this regard the only words of Jesus that come to mind are rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

I suspect that what you described as being "allowed" by Jesus falls into the category of God's and that means it's God's to deal with and not mine to presume to tell others what God allows.

Having seen publicly pious pharisee's leap to their feet and proclaim God's voice condemning American sinfulness right after the fall of the two towers, I know what the socially acceptible answer should be.

I also think that folks who really believe that some form of formal, legal coercion of other folks to some commonly supported orthodoxy of belief do not trust God's power and ability to assert His own will. I think that there's a lack of faith there that doesn't come up to snuff despite the pious preachings.

I also suspect that this is precisely the reason why Mr. Dobson stays safely within the realm of SpongeBob because the realm of the killing in Iraq is too dangerous for him to speak on behalf of God.

Same thing for Falwell hiding behind a defense of Christmas and Robertson pounding loudly about Supreme Court Justices while neither offer even their own flock some form of reconciling the killing with the God everyone sings and waves about in stadium size churches.

 So ... there is willingness to stay within a safe zone of morally whining about homosexuality and discussing it in a context of civil and human rights and/or "evil" ... but an apparent unwillingness to go beyond that seemingly "safe" area where mainstream Christian thought has built a fortress from which to hurl thundering denunciations of internationalized liberal left wing criticism regarding "our Christian in the White House."

Does that sum it up?

You have a concession from me that homosexuality is a valid issue around which morality may be discussed; a recognition, if you will, that some folks genuinely believe that homosexuality is fundamentally evil and something about which God has spoken and condemned.

Having seen now ample time and wordage on homosexuality and gay-marriage, we  ought to agree to disagree about gay-marriage and the struggle for gay-rights for the moment and move back to that which is of greater signifiance: the morality of falsehood to  war, killing and destruction as a more significant evil in our lives today?

I think it is disingenuous but skillful to pounce on the molehill while the mountain of death has erupted and threatens to engulf all of us. Individually we may not be physically harmed by the killing but individually and collectively we are even now spiritually harmed because or our identity as a nation and our national identity is tied to that Christian in the White House.

Why would one think James Dobson's obsession with homosexuality is more important both to the country and to God than the morality behind the killing?

Why should we expend our energy on the lesser at the expense of the greater?