OBAMA (5/17/09): What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website -- an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn't change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that -- when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

GATEMOUTH (2/7/09): The New Tolerant Tolerance, evokes…Otis Redding and Aretha Franklin. To cultural conservatives who might otherwise be disposed to our message, we offer R-E-S-P-E-C-T….R-E-S-P-E-C-T means not automatically using the word “bigot” to describe those who have sincere difference of opinion based upon faith, unless and until they have behaved like swine. It means embracing them for the common humanity we share and searching for some common ground.

I am an unlikely spokesperson for the concept that abortion and same sex marriage should be legitimate issues in a race for City Council. For starters, in the past, I’ve made clear in the strongest terms that it is not acceptable to brand opponents of same sex marriage as bigots, solely because they oppose same-sex marriage.

But, let me be clear that, while not all (and probably not even most) opponents of same-sex marriage are bigots, they are still wrong on the issue.

I’ve also been clear that it should not be a Democratic Party litmus test for choosing our nominees in socially conservative constituencies, or nationally. Electing Barack Obama president was more important that imposing upon him a litmus test.

But, while I once had a similar position about statewide races in New York, the ball has now rolled far enough that, in the service of even gradual progress, it is clearly time to up the ante, and impose that litmus test there as well.

But, while I am gratified that politicians as socially conservative as Councilman Simcha Felder have now indicated they would not oppose civil unions, and while I think it is perfectly legitimate for social liberals to use willingness to support same-sex civil unions as a standard to evaluate candidates in more conservative areas, there must also be places where we are bound to draw some brighter lines in the sand.

And the 39^th Councilmanic District, which includes all or part of Park Slope, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Gowanus and Kensington, is surely one of those places.

While it is clear that, in the long run, same-sex marriage will be law in the State of New York, and recognized nationally in some manner, whether that long run will be within some of our lifetimes depends on how effectively we fight our battles. With a bit of savvy and some luck, the long run may not be so long.

And, in this battle, one thing is clear. The fight will be led in the legislative halls by politician who represent the most socially liberal constituencies. If politicians who represent the most socially liberal constituencies will not lead the fight for same-sex marriage, then who the hell will?

Moreover, it is not only about leading the battle. It is about smoke and mirrors. Ultimately, this decision on this matter will be made by politicians from socially moderate constituencies showing some guts. But, showing some guts is often a matter of calculation. How many voters on each side in my district will actually care enough to vote solely based on that issue? If the vote is perceived as an overall advantage or a wash, then chances of passage are much improved.

But, if even socially liberal constituencies are shown to be capable of electing opponents of same sex marriage, then that will send a signal to wavering legislators that supporters of same-sex marriage lack clout even in their strongholds.

For anyone who hopes to see same-sex marriage in the near future, that is a truly dangerous signal to send. A victory by an opponent of same-sex marriage in an election in Park Slope would probably be a death-knell for passage of such legislation anytime soon.

Try picturing the political calculations of a Carl Kruger or John Sampson if such a district voted for an opponent of same-sex marriage.

“But,” some may respond, “it’s a race for City Council, and the City Council will never vote on same sex marriage. Why should same sex marriage or abortion be an issue in a race for City Council? “

I’ll admit, my natural inclination is to make fun of those who would elevate irrelevant issues over substance in a local election, but there really are logical reasons to do so. First, as I’ve already pointed out, is the message such a vote could send.

But, there are other reasons as well.

Often issues in an election bear little resemblance to the actual issues an elected official faces once they are elected. We can not ask a candidate how they will vote on a matter which is on no one’s horizon. Issues come and go; values do not. The best we can do in evaluating candidates is to listen to what they have to say, figure out from the limited information available what their values are, and try to figure out if they will process the information concerning future issues in a manner we would find acceptable before they come to a decision.

As such, knowing where a candidate stands on the hot-button issues of abortion or same-sex marriage is an excellent way of figuring out what they would do if the City Council had to make decisions about sex education, protecting clinic access, emergency contraception or special high schools for children with gender identity issues. How about if we once again had a Mayor decide that he was going to punish the Brooklyn Museum for once again elevating artistic freedom over good taste?

I think I can say with some confidence that the other candidates in the race would stand up for artistic integrity, even if it involved such supernal crap as children with penis-noses burying their probosci in each other’s ani, and collages composed of whole cows chopped into unappetizing segments (my friends at Staubitz Butcher Shop would have charged me less for the privilege of seeing this and would even have allowed me to buy the meat afterwards). The elephant-dung laden Jesus almost passed without notice in such nauseating company. But I’ve always believed artistic freedom is largely the freedom to risk becoming a cutting edge jerk.

I cannot say with any confidence that my values, and those of a majority of the district’s voters, are shared by Mr. Heyer. And, if the Councilmember from the 39^th District won’t defend such values, who the hell will?

Questioned about same sex civil marriage (“civil” being the only kind of marriages the government can create), Mr. Heyer said “I don’t think that government has the right to define …For me, marriage] is a religious institution and therefore has no place in government debate.”

In other words, because Heyer’s church regards marriage as a sacrament, Heyer feels marriage should be the monopoly of religious institutions, and, by inference, denied to anyone who would seek it outside of a church, mosque, synagogue or ashram. Sure, he would create civil unions for those whose beliefs don’t conform to the dictates of some established dogma, but it is quite clear from the crowds that come to the Municipal Building everyday dressed in the finest wedding attire, that these people want something called “marriage,” which Mr. Heyer states he would deny them.

Unless he’s a bonehead, he can’t possibly believe this. This is the sort of stuff propounded by bloggers and political columnists who can pontificate with all hands on dick without considering the political consequences of their proposals. Thankfully, politicians know better.

Nonetheless, it does prove that even should another Brooklyn Museum controversy never occur, we can still count on John Heyer to be the champion of elephant dung.