The Fault-line that ruptured some families:

One of the news stories of the recent election was how a number of young evangelicals chose to go contrary to their elders and vote for (now) President Obama. To say that this syndrome created a crisis in some families I'm acquainted with, is probably not too strong a statement.
Basically, the division came down to the older folk holding onto the view that support for a pro choice candidate violated their commitment to the sanctity of life. Many of them just couldn't understand how their kids could . . .
Though I'm definitely in the Older Evangelical demographic, I think get it, at least to a point.

• The youngsters (and some oldsters) look at a history of opposition to Roe v. Wade abortion law, that has lasted longer than they have been alive and say, "What do we have to show for all this effort? Maybe we should try something else."
• There was the obvious generational difference. I mean you could play basketball with Mr. Obama. Ladies could see themselves shopping with Michelle. Poor Old John couldn't get his arthritic hands above his head. In our image-conscious world, in a way that lies behind our cognitive, this image is powerful. Mr. Obama looks presidential in a vibrant, youthful way. In that regard he is a young version of Reagan.
• Then there are other issues. The younger folk raised a legitimate question. Is the abortion issue the only thing, or the preeminent thing, about which we should be concerned? That is a question worthy of intelligent debate.

Anyhow, now that President Obama is in office, it would be interesting to hear from some of you young evangelicals who supported him. You are welcome to remain anonymous. Did the speedy repeal of the ban on abortion funding disappoint you? Have you been pleased with his efforts to reach-out? Is speaker Pelosi, friend or foe?

I have a post in the works that questions the morality of a person who says that it is above his pay grade to answer the question of when life begins yet sanctions the killing of whatever those things are inside of women when by his own answer, clever though it was, he admits that he isn't sure whether they are human-beings or not. My suspicion is that he knows that they are. His answer was a dodge of that truth. Is avoiding that inconvenient truth acceptable?

Perhaps most important: Since you rejected the paradigm of voting against the friend of abortion, what new framework do you suggest?

I hope to hear from you. If you do choose anonymity, please let us know the general age bracket you fall into.