Why Protest the Church?

Gay activists are protesting several churches, most pronounced being the LDS Church, because they are angry about losing the ability to wed each other in California. Members of the LDS Church contributed nearly half of the fund to support Prop 8 in California. It is fair enough that gay activists should be angry about losing an election. It is also fair enough for them to believe that they have the right to marry each other. Although I disagree with them, I can concede that they believe it is their right.

I believe that it is not a fundamental right for a man to marry a man. A person's homosexual tendencies are certainly something they have a right to act upon in the privacy of their own home. I do not believe those tendencies make that person any different from me in the eyes of the law. Therefore, I do not believe the law should extend to a person with homosexual tendencies any more protection than it extends to me. I do not have the right to marry a man, two women, or a goat. I do agree that, by law, those rights could be extended to me. But I do not believe that they have to be extended to me. That is because they are not fundamental rights, such as the right to speak freely without censorship from the government.

But even that right, as fundamental as it is, can be restricted where it interferes with substantial and critical societal norms, such as safety, and in some instances, decency. For example, one is not free to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater because to extend that right would harm those in the theater and cause the government to exert resources that it otherwise shouldn't have to. This is just one example of a societal concern that trumps certain fundamental rights, and is not exclusive. There are numerous other societal concerns that would trump other fundamental rights.

Marriage is one of those rights that is beneficial to society, but which society can define. If society determines that certain types of marriage are harmful to society, then society has every right and responsibility to curb the exercise of the right to marry. In order for society to make that determination, certain elements in that society must be free to exert influence and pressure, in other words, to exercise its right to speek freely on matters of societal concern. This is what happened here.

Now, gay activists have the same right to try to exert influence and pressure on society to see things its way. They certainly exercised that right, and are continuing to do so. What I find rather humorous on one hand and hypocritical on the other, is that they feel that they should attempt to exert that influence on churches. I find this humorous because I consider it to be a great waste of their time and energy. See, the Church believes that God's will is that we should attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage. There are a number of reasons for this, and you are certainly welcome to speak with a member of the LDS Church to find out why. But if the Church believes this is God's will, and the Church believes that it is led by a prophet of God, then all the protesting in the world will not change the Church's stance.

There are two things I find hypocritical. First, this ridiculous allegation that the Church and its members are bigoted. This coming from a group who is protesting because it thinks religion has no place in this debate. People who espouse homosexuality as OK have adopted a religious stance, whether they want to call it by some other term. They believe that it is OK, and we believe that it is not. But, in the rhetoric, the bigotry comes only from those who claim that it is not OK?

Second, gay activists are calling for the IRS to strip the Church of its tax exempt status. Yet, how many of their organizations are paying taxes on the funds they raised in opposition to the proposition? A church is a social institution, established to promote social values. When those social values are threatened in the political arena, must the Church be expected to simply stand aside, while those values which it promotes and holds dear are threatened? Look at the flip side. Gay organizations are established to promote societal values. When those values are threatened in the political arena, must those organizations be expected to simply stand aside?

All I ask is for some intellectual honesty. If you decide to embrace a lifestyle that you know is offensive to certain religions, don't go demanding that those religions change their doctrines to accept your lifestyle. Live what you believe, try for political change, and try to convince society to accept you. But don't demand acceptance where you, at the same time, refuse to offer it.

In Defense of AIG

Just a quick note.

(Disclaimer: I am not a fan of the bailout... I have 2 shares of AIG stock.)

AIG is in the sales business. That means it has to provide incentive to its sales people. Having sold insurance, I can tell you that a luxury trip to Puerto Rico one year was incentive to get my butt in gear for the next luxury trip.

I know that we gave money to this company, and we expect it to act responsibly... now. But acting responsibly means that it has to improve or maintain its sales force. It also has to continue training and education. If we put too much scrutiny on every activity this company does in the course of its business, without looking at whether that activity is beneficial to the growth and stability of the company, then we will run it down and lose our huge investment.

We should still be able to put certain concessions on the companies we give our tax dollars to, and, of course, we should expect them to act responsibly. For example, if we wind up bailing out Detroit, we can certainly require that the unions make huge concessions (like disbanding?). But the autoworkers wages and benefits add to the price of production. Sales people add to the profits. The better they sell, the better the company's bottom line.

So let them sell. Sell, baby, sell!

Sour Grapes

Be careful what you wish for...


1. Change. Change is nice... if you save enough of it up, you can divide it up between the kids for a good time at Silver Dollar City. Change is not so fun, however, when you have to scrape it together to pay for gas for the next few days. Change is in the air, and unfortunately, it's giving off a rather foul odor. A radio commentator accidentally stated that "Obama is rewriting history!" How's that for a flub of the day.

2. Hope. Hope is nice... if there is a chance of it being realized. Hope is not so nice when it's all you've got. I had once hoped that I might make a few bucks, and could give back to others, in appreciation for their assistance in getting me here. I now hope I can make enough bucks to make up for the bigger chunk of change I'll be losing by making those few bucks.

3. A New America. That would be nice... if it means protecting my liberty and letting me enrich others with my own ambitious attempts to better my situation. It would not be so nice if means standing in line behind everyone else who is waiting for the next bread crust to be tossed his way.

Looking for the positives...

1. This is a corner-turning election. Obama inspired many people who have otherwise felt invisible in a political sense to become politically active. Blacks and minorities will hopefully see that we are not a latently racist people. Now, when a person is elected president despite his/her minority status, then we will have arrived somewhere great.

2. Kudos to California, Arizona, Arkansas, and (I think?) Florida for recognizing the importance of protecting the sanctity of families and the rights of children to be raised in a loving home with a father and a mother committed to each other.

3. Republicans can now soul-search for why they have strayed so far from those core principles that made us so strong and attractive. The other side doesn't have them. But because they cannot be found here, people will go to whomever promises them the moon. Get back to smaller government, fiscal responsibility, capitalism, and constitutional directive. Realize that your biases are what killed you. Who could have beat Obama on the economy? How about the guy that deals with economic issues for a living? Sounds great, except that he's a Mormon! He may be a Mormon, but it took morons to give him the boot.

The Great Tent Approach is fine, so long as those under the tent can agree to the core principles. Trying to redefine your party is fine, too. Just don't do it merely for the sake of prolonging the life of the party. I always get nervous when Republicans start talking about what we can do to attract more people. That usually means "what can we compromise in order to win?". If you are going to redefine the party, get back to those principles stated above. If they are true principles of good government, then people will see them, see that they work, and then want to associate. If you just look for what's going to attract the most people, you will be redefining continually ad nauseum, because people are fickle and lazy, and fickle and lazy people tend to drift with the wind of the day.