The old adage says that religion and politics don't mix.  Someone needs to tell FOX Sports writer Jason Whitlock that sports and politics don't either.  In his February 17 column dedicated to ranking the top 10 quarterbacks of all-time, Whitlock made one of the most ridiculous, outrageous, and boneheaded statements any sports reporter has made in a very long time.

Whitlock was describing the game-clinching play of Super Bowl XLIV when Saints defensive back Tracy Porter jumped a route being run by Colts wide-receiver Reggie Wayne, intercepted quarterback Peyton Manning's pass and galloped down the field for a touchdown, securing the Saints win.  For Indiana folks like me, it was heartbreaking.  For the folks of New Orleans...ecstasy. 

But Whitlock managed to drive a political wedge into what should have otherwise been left as a thrilling moment of sports history by writing, "A black defensive back outsmarted a beloved white quarterback.  I know. That's a truth many of you can't handle. It makes you uncomfortable."

Yes, I'm serious...he really did write that.  Whitlock didn't bother to enlighten anyone what it was about Porter's skin pigmentation that led to his decisive advantage over Manning.  Perhaps that little nugget of wisdom will come in a future column. 

Now, for the purposes of full disclosure, I readily admit that I am a Peyton Manning sycophant.  I would defend him and his body of work on the football field any day, against anybody.  I would not be the source to come to for objective analysis of where he ranks on the list of all time great quarterbacks.  But this has nothing to do with defending Manning or his legacy.  It doesn't even have anything to do with football.  Rather, it has everything to do with our society having the courage to look race-baiters in the face, rebuke them, and then quit giving them a platform from which they can continue to fan the very flames of discord that they claim to abhor.  They don't despise racism; they thrive on it.  And in cases like Whitlock, they apparently make their living from it.

Leading into his buffoonish remark, Whitlock wrote that he was making his column, "all about the elephant in the room" - that elephant being the fact that a black player outsmarted a white one.  Apparently Whitlock saw himself as courageous for being willing to discuss what no one else would.  Maybe it didn't dawn on him that the reason no one else was bringing it up was because it was such a stupid thing to say.

How would Whitlock react if a white sports writer had written a column to address the "elephant in the room" regarding the Saints go-ahead touchdown that had occurred just moments before Porter's interception - a play that was just as pivotal in determining the game's outcome?  If that writer correctly pointed out that the play was called by a white coach (Shawn Payton) against a black coach (Jim Caldwell), was executed by a white quarterback (Drew Brees) throwing to a white tight end (Jeremy Shockey) over a black defender (Jacob Lacey), and concluded that it was time we paid attention to those facts, would that be acceptable?

You see, rational people just don't think this way anymore.  Most of us aren't obsessed with race.  Dare I say it - most of us don't really care about race.  A lot of black Indianapolis Colts fans were devastated when the black Porter picked off the white Manning.  Conversely, a lot of white New Orleans Saints fans were elated when it happened.  That's as it should be, isn't it?  Wouldn't that have been a better elephant to write about, if one was determined to bring race up at all?  Isn't that living up to the words of Dr. King when he spoke of judging someone based on the content of their character (or in this case, their athletic play) rather than the color of their skin? 

Why does that elude people like Jason Whitlock?  And how does he think that his racially-driven remarks will help us reach that mountaintop of brotherhood?  Perhaps it's because Whitlock isn't nearly as interested in standing atop that mountain as he is in drawing attention to himself and his work? 

It is a sad, sorry and small man who looks at a great play like Tracy Porter made and who thinks the significant storyline is the color of his skin.  So let's just address the real elephant in the room, shall we?  As long as such men - men like Jason Whitlock - are setting the discussion agenda, we're never going to reach a colorblind society.  They simply won't allow it.

The story is both heartbreaking and infuriating.  Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council recently wrote a column telling this painful account that is being completely and totally ignored by the mainstream press.

Lisa Miller, a Virginia woman, is the mother of a beautiful seven year old girl named Isabella.  Isabella was the product of artificial insemination, meaning that her biological father was an anonymous sperm donor making Lisa her only known biological parent.

At the time Lisa had Isabella conceived in her womb, she was practicing homosexuality with a woman named Janet Jenkins.  For the first year of Isabella's life, Lisa and Janet maintained a relationship, even traveling to Vermont to obtain the legal recognition known as a "civil union."  As time went by, however, Lisa began to realize that her effort to find fulfillment in sexual depravity wasn't working.  She began to attend a Christian church again and soon decided to end the relationship.  She and her biological daughter then moved back to Virginia where Lisa has raised her for the last six years.

Initially, Isabella was taken to Janet for visitation, but many times would return from those trips emotionally distressed, confused, and sometimes experiencing severe anxiety.  Concerned for the well being of her daughter, Lisa ended the visitation sessions with Janet...and set into motion a series of events that prove the backwards and radical nature of the homosexual lobby. 

It also proves the utter foolishness behind the notion advanced by the homosexual movement that a person's identity should be defined by their chosen behaviors.  The fact is that homosexuality is what a person does, not who a person is.  And failing to understand that has tragic implications for both the family and society at large.

Because the state of Vermont gave into the bullying tactics of the homosexual political agenda, they wrote utter nonsense into their law that is now upending any rational approach to the Lisa-Janet-Isabella saga.  Vermont's highest court has ordered that Lisa surrender Isabella to the authorities, who will then give custody to Janet as the rightful parent.

As Sprigg wrote, "The very legal principle on which Janet rests her claim to Isabella has historically been described as the "presumption of paternity" (i.e., fatherhood). It absolved men and women from having to legally prove what was almost always true anyway?that the father of a child born to a married woman is her husband. Now, the same principle is asserted to support something that can never be true since a female partner can never be a father. A usually-true legal assumption (the presumption of paternity) has been twisted into a complete legal fiction."

It's interesting how "civil unions" are always portrayed as the happy middle ground in the battle over same sex marriage.  Even some pro-family advocates are willing to accept the legitimacy of civil unions as some sort of victory for them since they stop short of conferring the semantic title of "marriage" upon homosexual partners.  And yet, this tragic story involving the innocent Isabella demonstrates that "civil unions" are not effective compromises, but rather weapons used by social activists to assist in their ongoing struggle to undo cultural norms and moral standards through legal confusion.

Consider also that Janet's attorneys are attempting to use the 1980 Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act to benefit their client.  The PKPA was enacted to prevent a disgruntled parent who lost a custody hearing from taking their child into another state to try to get a different custody ruling.  In other words, this law was intended to prevent a rightful biological parent from having their child taken from them.  Yet, thanks to what the homosexual lobby has accomplished, this law is now being twisted into a tool to do exactly what it was intended to prevent.

When Hollywood portrays or the mainstream media reports on those practicing homosexuality, they paint a picture of normalcy that does not exist, and they engage in grotesque mischaracterizations that equate sexual behavior (that is always a choice) with genetic identity (that is never a choice).  The consequence is a fundamental reshaping of society - families reconstituted, laws rewritten, mores restructured.

Despite the propaganda campaign to portray homosexuals as passive victims and those with traditional moral values as aggressive oppressors, the "gay rights" movement is seeking this very type of cultural revolution.  But don't take my word for it.  Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director for the homosexual Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund said, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so...Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."

Indeed it does.  And little girls like Isabella have their lives ruined in the process.