EDIT: I've heard the argument that it was bolder for Obama to say something because he's President and that Cheney said nothing as Vice President. That is false. First, Cheney did say he supported same-sex marriage on the state-by-state level while Vice President. Here's an excerpt from an article in August 2004 from Associated Baptist Press:

During a morning campaign stop in Davenport, Iowa, Cheney indicated that he was maintaining the same position on legalizing same-sex marriage that he espoused during the 2000 presidential campaign -- that the decision should be left up to individual states. He also publicly acknowledged, reportedly for the first time, that his daughter, Mary, who works in his campaign, is a lesbian.

When an audience member asked him what he personally believes about gay marriage, according to a White House transcript of the event, Cheney responded: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with…. With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be … free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

Second, for a Republican Vice President with a President who supports a Federal Marriage Amendment to come out on this issue is a gutsier move than Obama saying, "It's a state issue..." among a party more supportive of the issue. So, I ask again - what's the difference in their stance on the issue? None.

“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from our mission] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.”

Give up? It was Mother Teresa. She wrote it in her book, "Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers." Quotes like that make you wonder. In John 14:6 it reads:

Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

If a Christian, especially a Christian missionary says otherwise - they are wrong. Mother Teresa in this quote states a form of Universalism that is prevalent in American culture today. All faiths are equal, all faiths bring us closer to the Lord. If you believe truthfully in your faith you will realize this sentiment is false.

Few faiths at their core actually teach that type of universalistic salvation. They teach their individual truth. Christianity is no different - it teaches that through Christ alone is our salvation obtained. A missionary like Mother Teresa should have known better.

Now, I do not pretend to know if in her heart of hearts she believed in true universalism or other false doctrines, but that specific quote is troubling. What's the point of mission work if not to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the corners of the Earth? If you are telling these people they don't need Christ, but can focus instead on their household gods as a way to get "close to God," you are teaching false doctrine. This may be controversial and this may offend some, but it needs to be said. If a Christian leader says something false, it needs to be pointed out. This is an untruth in the Christian faith.

Perhaps this is an isolated comment. Perhaps this book was ghostwritten. But if this was in her heart of hearts, Christ was not the center of her mission work - people were.

EDIT: 1:18 PM EST - Some of my Catholic friends on Twitter sprung to the defense of Mother Teresa stating that in the context of her life she was getting at something different - that the Lord will use anything and everything to find us right where we are. I agree with that sentiment, but as I told them - I do not see that sentiment in the aforementioned quote. Maybe I'm missing something and if so, I apologize for taking something out of a larger context. My Catholic friends would probably understand her in context better than I as they are of her church.

That said, I stand by my opposition to universalism. And, as I stated up there, I can not pretend to know the true heart of Mother Teresa, I can only know what she said. This is how I interpreted her statement. If you have other interpretations, feel free to add them to the comments section.

• Scott Walker has been successful in Wisconsin. How much so? Looking like a surplus in their upcoming budget. Walker's getting recalled - so if you're a Republican or a reasonable fellow who likes seeing serious budget cuts, join me in standing with Walker.
• Speaking of recalls - I oppose recall elections.
• In the most obvious headline ever, Maryland Reporter wrote that "Maryland is Too Reliant on Income Taxes, One Group Reports." Clearly, Maryland is. In fact, it's the #2 in the nation in regards to reliance on personal income taxes for state budgeting.
• Lifeway Research released some polling and Ed Stetzer released a fascinating infographic regarding people's opinions on whether homosexuality is a sin. 44% believe it to be a sin, 43% do not.
• Regarding homosexuality, Erick Erickson has a thoughtful piece entitled, "Where is the Balance?"
• Speaking of Maryland - a special session is on its way as requested by the Governor. Obviously, he's pushing for tax hikes. Here's what's currently on the docket.
• Obama forgot the magnitude of the recession. Yes, he really did say that. Why did Americans vote for this man again?
• President of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission Richard Land has formally apologized for his racially insensitive comments regarding the Trayvon Martin case.  You can read my comments on the topic here and here. African American leaders in the SBC have come out supportive of his repentance, which is wonderful. Ed Stetzer also responded to the apology here.
• A piece where Marie poses the question as to what if God had a Gmail account.
• Also - "It's a Von Trapp!"

Other interesting news I miss? Let me know in the comments section.

While I did not expect to be making an announcement regarding the 2014 election so early in the cycle, I felt that an announcement regarding my intentions was appropriate as my former Primary opponent and 2010 Republican nominee for the office of Comptroller of Maryland made clear his intentions last week to seek the nomination once again in 2014. After taking a realistic look at the race over several months, I made the decision to not seek the office of Maryland Comptroller again in 2014. As we looked closely at the race, it became clear that the expense of a substantial campaign would be in excess of $100,000. Simply put, we felt that it would be very difficult to raise that kind of money for a race that is not at the top of the ticket. Although I have my differences with Mr. Campbell, I believe that he is an honorable and principled man, and I endorse his campaign for the office of Comptroller of Maryland.

While I will not be seeking the office of Comptroller of Maryland, I remain interested in pursuing lower office in 2014, namely the delegate seat in my home district of 5B where Delegate Kach has made a number of anti-family votes. I will continue to explore a run in this district, but do not intend to make any formal announcement for at least another year. At this time, I am focused on fighting for Maryland families, not running for political office."

Madigan is someone to watch in 2014 as a potential candidate for Delegate in 2014 and would be the youngest member if elected.

I grew up in upstate New York. In our area, local school boards are a) hyper local and b) directly elected in non-partisan races. What this led to in the past were a few issues. First, a number of locals who happened to be well known with little to no qualifications or ability get elected. These people in New York have the power to levy school taxes and completely define the local school budget. They also have the power to appoint school administrators. This led to some awful budgets, poor execution, and people elected who focused on raising the budget in their pet areas (ex. very specific school sports programs)

The second problem can be summed up in two words: teacher's unions. In some cases, I have seen teacher's unions pushing puppet candidates just to help themselves. I've seen spouses of teachers, including in one local election a former teacher who was fired having her husband run for school board. He lost, thankfully, but barely. Teacher's unions will become active in these types of elections and will push their own puppet candidates. The question is will local resident's recognize a puppet versus a serious contender for the post.

Thirdly, politics are driven into the school board. Whether intentional or not, making school board members elected by definition will make the board more political. Candidates will have a platform, plan for what they want to do - will be accountable to the voters. This is a good thing, but also a double edged sword. A focus on reelection by school board members may lead to them making decisions politically based on what will give them more votes as opposed to what is in the best interest of the entire school board.

On the other hand, being elected means they are beholden to the people and will be more focused on local needs. This is good. This is why I support the proposal for a partially elected school board as discussed during the legislative session. A number of members beholden to the people and a number of members appointed based on qualifications picked by the Governor or local government (the latter I would prefer).