When we're all preoccupied with achieving the perfect body (or getting our body back) or waxing ourselves hairless or learning how to create this season's smoky eye, who has the energy to deal with stuff that matters? Who has the time to remember there is stuff that matters?
A "social issue" is where to seat people at a dinner table. It's code for "lady things" -- these are words whose only purpose is to trivialize ideas central to our future well-being and democracy by virtue of associating them with women.
As a pastor, I am especially worried that women, men and children who have survived the horror of rape are re-traumatized each time a public figure suggests that some kinds of rape are less valid than others.
Why is the government so concerned about my uterus? Why do these reactionaries consider a collection of cells that are injected into the womb without consent to be a person worthy of protection under the law?
If Proposed Initiative 46 passes, men who rape women in Colorado will be secure in the knowledge that their efforts to humiliate and degrade those women will be backed up and reinforced by state action forcing those women to go to term -- whether they want to or not.
Protecting sperm rights would benefit society, and wouldn't really harm men. Understand -- a man's right to control his own body and life choices would not be infringed. Men could still have sex. They would merely be asked to accept a few tiny, ever-so-reasonable restrictions.
Will 2012's Republican women voters recognize this presidential election for what it really is for every American woman voter: a referendum on the very notion of what a woman can be in this day and age? I sure hope so.
Put aside for the moment the horrifying reality that Akin feels that some rapes are more "legitimate" than others. And let's focus on the fact that so many men in positions of power over women's health are so clueless about female biology.
For reasons that social scientists have yet to definitively unpuzzle, atheism and agnosticism are overwhelmingly staffed by men. My guess is that women see secularism more as having to do with atheism than with gender-based church-state issues.
In his speech Saturday morning, Paul Ryan emphasized the need for Americans to take back its right to choose. Isn't it right to assume that, if we want the government out of off our backs and out of our wallets, we'd also want the government out our wombs?
The focus in the coming days will be all about Rep. Ryan's budget. Let's hope the American people also get a debate about his blueprint for LGBT equality, immigration, voting rights, reproductive freedom and other constitutional issues. Indeed, it's just as abysmal as Romney's.