Some years ago, I knew a young Christian woman who had opportunities to sing in various church-related settings in a couple different states. Not once did her husband accompany her. He could have, but he didn’t. Not once. That really really bothered me. Still does.

As a kid, my parents always tried to attend when I was doing something in public–high school tennis matches and basketball games, playing the piano for the school choir, performances at church. That always meant a lot to me. At tennis matches, my parents were often the only parents watching. It made me a little bit sad for my teammates.

Pam and I enjoy being part of each other’s professional worlds. When I speak in churches or conduct seminars at conferences, she is always there. I appreciate that. She takes vacation time to travel to my professional conferences and seminars, and I do the same for her.

I know all about Pam’s work environment and coworkers, and I’ve tried to learn enough about accounting to be conversant in her world. Likewise, Pam takes an interest in my world of work. I always appreciate Pam’s ready support, and her desire to be part of things that are important to me.

Everyone likes having the support of the persons closest to them.

Which brings me to Mitt Romney. I hope I’m not being unfair, but I’m genuinely bothered by something.

I’m a big fan of Ann Romney. She’s pretty, funny, engaging, articulate, and obviously just a very good person. Plus, she suffers from multiple sclerosis, and seems to have the best of it. Mitt is a straight-laced, goody-two-shoes, every-hair-in-place kind of guy. But Ann strikes me as a worthy counter-balance, the person in the family apt to keep things light, and maybe even a bit earthy at times (as she proved in that “unzipped” Baltimore radio interview). I’m guessing she’s a delightfully ornery person. She’s got that look about her.

Ann Romney also has a hobby which, this week, has taken her to the Olympics. She’s part owner of a horse which made the Olympic team in dressage–a silly sport, in my view, but a recognized sport nonetheless. She is now at the pinnacle of this sport, on the world stage, representing her country. This is a big deal for Ann Romney.

But Mitt is nowhere near. Rather, he’s in Nevada attending campaign events and fundraisers.

Fact is, Mitt Romney doesn’t want to be associated with his wife’s sport. He has tried to distance himself from dressage, to portray himself as totally uninterested in it. His campaign advisors apparently feel–with some justification–that being identified with a rich person’s sport could damage his carefully groomed image and cost him some votes. So he has given in. Ann must go it alone. His needs trump hers.

In an interview with NBC, Mitt Romney downplayed his interest in and knowledge of dressage. “It’s a big, exciting experience for my wife. I have to tell you, this is Ann’s sport. I’m not even sure which day the sport goes on. She will get the chance to see it. I will not be watching the event. I hope her horse does well. But just the honor of being here and representing our country and seeing the other Olympians is…something which I’m sure the people that are associated with this are looking forward to.”

The people associated with this. Meaning: not me. I don’t have anything to do with it.

You won’t even be watching? Your wife’s horse is competing for an Olympic medal. As you say, it’s a big, exciting experience for your wife. But you, basically, don’t know anything about it? That’s part of her life, and heaven forbid that her interests intrude upon your time? Is that what you’re saying, Mitt?

Am I the only person bothered by this?

I’m sure he’ll say there were “scheduling conflicts” which couldn’t be resolved. But he could have adjusted his schedule. We all know that.

He could have told his campaign advisors, “I know we’ll take some hits over dressage. But doggoneit, this is my wife. This sport is very important to her, and I’m going to be there with her to share in this once-in-a-lifetime event. She has stood besides me throughout my career, so I’m gonna do the same for her.”

I would have respected that.

Ann Romney has been the model business and political wife. She has raised his children and kept his home(s) while he was out making a fortune, running off to save the Olympics, campaigning for governor, creating a state healthcare system, and for the past eight years running for president. She has no doubt put her own desires on hold so she could support her husband in his various pursuits.

Now, when something very important to her comes along, she must once again take the back seat. His presidential ambitions come first. If there is a slight chance, according to hypersensitive campaign advisors, that standing beside Ann while her horse represents America in the Olympics might hurt his presidential bid, those concerns take precedence.

And so, Ann Romney is at the Olympics without her husband, her soul-mate. He is not there to share in the excitement–in her excitement. Because he very publicly doesn’t want to be connected with this thing she’s passionate about.

Maybe they’ve come to some kind of understanding. I don’t know. Running for president is certainly an extraordinary life circumstance. But I’m guessing that, all things considered, Ann Romney would much prefer that her husband was there to share this experience.

This in no way disqualifies Mitt Romney from being president. It doesn’t affect his ability to lead and fix the country. But as a man and a husband…well, fair or unfair, it bothers me.

I imagine this is an all-hands-on-deck day at Chick-Fil-A. It is, after all, a relatively impromptu Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. I’ve always respected the company (like their refusal to open on Sunday), and I’ve always loved their food. Pam and I often eat there on the way to music practice on Thursday nights.

Years ago, while traveling across the country from Indiana to Arizona to spend the Christmas holidays with my family, I saw a billboard for a Chick-Fil-A restaurant. I was ready to eat, and Chick-Fil-A sounded great. My mouth was watering. So I pulled off at the appropriate exit, went into the mall…and it was Sunday. Chick-Fil-A was closed. I was SO disappointed.

I’m glad Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy has the backbone to take a public stand on biblical principles. And to take what is, from a business standpoint, a politically incorrect stand. I’m not in total agreement with his statements, and I’m definitely not in agreement with some of the organizations Chick-Fil-A supports. I don’t think taking a public stand like this against homosexuals is going to win anybody to the Lord (just push people away, more likely). But hey, the world’s a better place with Christians who hold strong convictions, and it’s certainly a better place with those delicious chicken nuggets.

Now, Dan Cathy is not suffering religious persecution, as some people hysterically claim. He is merely suffering from disagreement. That happens when you are a prominent person and take a public stand. People disagree with you, perhaps vehemently. But in a pluralistic society, disagreeing with a Christian stand does not constitute religious persecution. It’s just a matter of passionate disagreement. (We are WAY too quick to cry “Religious persecution!” in America; we really don’t understand the concept.)

If Dan Cathy had stated a preference for Ford cars over Chrysler, it would have made Chrysler owners mad, and they would have criticized him. But that doesn’t mean they would be persecuting Ford owners. Or that Cathy was bigoted against Chrysler. So people–chill out, okay?

Is this controversy good for Chick-Fil-A?

I suspect that, from a marketing standpoint, the company would rather be known as a restaurant chain with great food, rather than as a right-wing restaurant chain. They’ve always been up-front about their Christian values, but never in an in-your-face kind of way. More a matter of living their values, rather than of flaunting them. But now, they’ll be known in some people’s eyes as a right-wing company.

But it’ll blow over. Remember those Christian boycotts of Disney back in the 1990s, because they were extending benefits to the gay partners of employees (seems like that’s what it was about, anyway)? My denomination endorsed the boycott, and since we never rescinded anything, I assume the boycott still stands. But nobody knows about it. I’m sure United Brethren people spend thousands of dollars every year on Disney movies, theme parks, and products.

We Americans have a short attention span. We follow whatever pundits tell us to follow at that moment, and when they move on, so do we. This controversy will have a short shelf life. Chick-Fil-A will have a big spike in sales today, and continuing for a few weeks. But then things will return to normal, and people who just like their food–conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike, and people of all faiths–will patronize their local Chick-Fil-A without thinking any political thoughts.

So if you want to get all worked up about this, and if you want to post somebody else’s graphics on Facebook, go right ahead. Knock yourself out. Give Chick-Fil-A this moment in the sun. Couldn’t happen to a better company.

For the moment, biblical values are getting lots of play in the media. But considering all of the vitriol associated with it, and the nastiness being flung around by people on all sides of the issue, I’m not sure that’s a good thing. It’s sad how quickly Christians can be incited to raw incivility, if not full-blown hatefulness. I suspect that this bothers Cathy, and that in the future, he will not be so vocal.

(Perry Noble, a megachurch pastor with an edge, a solid evangelical who knows how to talk straight, wrote an excellent blog post about the controversy: “Ben & Jerry’s, Chick-Fil-A, and Political Correctness.”)

On the July 15 edition of “Meet the Press,” I saw something which I thought was all but dead: two partisan operatives being objective about, and negative toward, their own candidates. Republican strategist Mike Murphy criticized something Mitt Romney was doing, and Democrat strategist Hilary Rosen responded by giving a simliar criticism of how Barack Obama was falling short.

It was so refreshing!

This is something we’ve lost in our polarized culture: the ability to have an objective conversation. That “Meet the Press” exchange was not a conversation–a TV show isn’t built for that–but it showed me that Rosen and Murphy were capable of stepping back from their partisan roles and engaging in a real conversation.

I long for a conversation in which people can freely argue both for and against a particular candidate. I can give you pluses and minuses for Barack Obama, and pluses and minuses for Mitt Romney. I’d love to have a conversation with someone who can put aside partisan preferences and just talk freely, without thinking he must convert me…or I him.

I’d love to feel free to voice my many criticisms of Barack Obama, and to hear my Republican friends respond with their reservations about Mitt Romney. Just talk, and see where it ends up.

You just don’t see that anymore. Instead, people argue tooth and nail in favor of their prefered candidate, and will not accept any criticism of their candidate (or will dismiss it or rationalize it away). I’m at fault, I admit. When people take nothing but an anti-Obama position, then I’m goaded into responding in kind. I seldom affirm pro-Romney or anti-Obama statements, so I’m as guilty as the next person. Guided largely by my assumption (right or wrong) that the other person has no interest in a conversation, I default to argument mode. And I hate that.

I would love to have an actual conversation. A conversation where someone makes a point in favor of Mitt Romney, and I can say, “You’re absolutely right.” And the person then says, “But on the other hand…”, and then gives a criticism of Romney. And I can respond, “I disagree. Here’s how I would defend Romney.” A conversation without dividing lines.

Because nearly everyone I know is a Republican, I’m normally cast in the position, at least out of fairness, of defending Obama. Of defending him against someone who will not admit the slightest shred of good in anything Obama has done. There can be no conversation with such people, and that disturbs me.

I just want to talk. Not argue. I’m tired of arguing.

Can’t we just talk openly, honestly, about politics? Can’t we try to follow Stephen Covey’s principle, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”?

The fate of our country does not hinge on whether you vote for Obama or Romney, or whether I vote for Obama or Romney. So ferociously trying to win every political argument is silly. The fate of our country, more likely, hinges on our ability to engage in civil dialogue with people who disagree with us, and to honestly seek to understand the merits of opposing viewpoints.