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.

The Last Minute Voter Guide

1. McCain has experience: served in the Senate since the early 80's, served in the armed forces, as a commander, for years before that, served in Vietnam.

a. Obama gave a speech in 2002. Obama was a Senator for 2 years (his last two years are hardly worth counting).

2. John has judgment: As a captive in Vietnam, under the harshest of conditions, John chose to respect those with whom he associated rather than taking advantage of his position.

b. When faced with the embarrassment of his prior close associations, Barak's leadership style proved to be to turn his back on those associations, even his longtime preacher.

3. John has courage: John chose to serve his country in Vietnam. Rather than give up and give in to his captors, John persevered thru some of the worst imaginable torture. Against strong opposition to a president and mainstream supporters of his own party, John spoke out against cruel torture, even of terrorists. Early in his Senate career, he bucked the very president whom he admired, Ronald Reagan, and opposed certain efforts in the middle east.

c. Barak associated with known terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. When he could have stood up for the nation of Israel, he chose instead to remain silent thru a dinner in honor of a friend of his who was a spokesman for the PLO. He applauded and praised this friend. When he thought his association with these friends would cost him politically, he lied about those associations. He renounced his preacher, after 20 years of sermons and support from the right reverend wright.

4. John is bipartisan: he is known for reaching across the aisle. While this is frustrating at times, it shows that his intentions are to further the best interests of this nation, even if that means losing support from certain important factions in his own party. He worked closely with and developed a strong friendship with Joe Lieberman, with whom he found support to promote the troop surge, when it was not popular.

d. Upon graduation, having married a successful attorney, Barak dedicated his time to building up partisan community organizations and finding ways to siphon government (tax) funds for these groups to further his own ambitions.

5. John understands economic realities: While he admitted to not knowing enough about economics, he understands enough to recognize that the fundamentals of a strong economy do not involve "spreading the wealth" or punishing achievements. While details can be worked out on exactly how best to preserve our capitalist system (which, by the way, the whole world, socialists and communists included, relies upon for their own prosperity), he will at least try to preserve our capital system.

e. Barak wants to spread the wealth. He has studied how to do so (as opposed to why not to do so). He believes the economy is best strengthened through governmental interference and management. (The same government that, when the purse strings were placed in the hands of the democrats, ran up a debt the size of which the world had never before imagined possible?) A student of socialism and marxism, he has yet to remove the rose-colored glasses to see the reality of things.

6. John is not in bed with the media: While they loved him early on, they turned on him in a heartbeat when they discovered that he really was, after all, a Republican.

f. L.A. Times, San Fransisco Chronicle, NY Times, Washington Post... (Who's this Bill Ayers? Barak said what? When?)

7. John McCain is a practicalist: While he espouses ideals and holds moral values, he understands that reality dictates solutions. He recognizes that certain core ideals and moral values are superior to others because those cores make it possible for other ideals and values to exist and to thrive. i.e., Equality is only possible where liberty is cherished and honored.

g. Barak is idealistic and idealogical: Reality only exists where he says it exists. Equality is the ultimate goal, and can only be accomplished at the expense of liberty. Equality will be served on a golden platter (which you are only allowed to look at and admire from your equally wretched and decripit hut).

Hope this helps! Now go vote!

Love Is

When I was in high school, curiosity brought me to a meeting of Students Against Driving Drunk. I've never been a fan of drunk drivers, and it always made me mad that they were getting off with a slap on the wrist and a wink. I was soon thereafter approached by a school counselor to represent the school at the state level. While I was tempted to accept the offer, there was something about the program that really bothered me. I finally realized that it was the focus. Driving Drunk. It was actually more about students trying to persuade drunk students from driving. For me, it seemed more logical to persuade students from drinking. Then I wouldn't have much problem with them driving. That, of course, didn't go over so well. Students liked to drink. Or so they thought. I don't know many of them who enjoyed the flavor. I think they liked to drink because they thought they liked to drink - because they thought they were supposed to like to drink. Maybe I am wrong.

I didn't like to drink. Neither did my friends. In fact, we can still recall most of our parties. We had a great time. We had alternatives. For us, we didn't focus on whether we were going to drink or not. In fact, it very seldom came up. We just liked getting together and finding things to do. No one had to worry about who was going to bring the beer, or how they were going to get it. We were more focused on what movies we were going to rent, or whose house we were going to hang out at, or who was going to drive while we cruised Memorial, or the Fontana.

Nor did we worry about birth control, or sexually transmitted diseases, or whether we were going to have sex, or whether we were going to deprive ourselves of sex. We knew we would wait. We also tried to avoid getting too promiscuous. Why? Because we were learning the value of a relationship that was built on friendship and courtship. We didn't use the term "courting", but we lived by its connotations. We understood what sex was. We knew what sexual activity was. But we valued respect above all else. And we found that our relationships with the opposite sex were stronger for it. We fell in love. We recognized love. Love, for us, was not an activity we arrived at, but an emotion we experienced on both long- and short-terms. We had girlfriends. And while we sure each one was "the One", we cherished the sweet, innocent emotion that bloomed as we developed a pining for each other. We had long-distance, short-distance, marathon and sprint romances. But our focus was not on whether we would score. Rather, we focused on whether this one would bloom; whether this would be "the One".

Abstinence education struck me as a little odd. It began just as I was leaving school, so I never really got into it. But from what I knew of it, and from what I had been taught growing up, I saw the wisdom in it, and was happy to agree with its message. But, as beautiful as the message was, it was certainly vulnerable to snide and snappy comedic attacks. And it seemed almost doomed. Why? I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Tonight, I can. For the same reason I had a hard time with the SADD - the focus. Read this article for more. I thought it laid it out pretty good. Abstinence is fine, but innocent romance is where its at.

Run, Fred, Run

Well, Freddy joined the hunt. I know he's done well in the blogosphere, and he has been campaigning outside of the campaign, which people really love. (I think it results from a fear of jumping on a bandwagon, and losing credibility in conversations.) I'm not sure how that will translate in the real world. I can't say as I am an avid fan. I just don't see him as president. On one hand, I fear that his appearance and mannerisms will result in another Bob Dull campaign. On the other hand, where Dole was a liberal Repub, Thompson is certainly not.

What I do like is the perspective he brings to the mix of candidates. This is always good. I like that he admits that he does not have all the answers to our problems, but that no one else does, either. I think that he brings a level of practicality to the field. If the others are smart, and I think some of them are, they will analyze why he has such support, and find a way to internalize some of his platform into their own. If they can pull it off without being disingenuous (and I think it can be done at this early stage), they can nab some of his support, add it to what they already have, and emerge as a viable candidate.

I really don't think there is such a divergence between him and Romney, that Romney can't garnish Fred's supporters. As I've said before, Romney is more winnable in the North, while not necessarily loseable in the South. Fred will have a harder time in the North, especially in some states (MA?) where the Repub would need to grab votes.

Most of their stances are pretty similar. True, Romney's have changed recently, but they honestly do not think the changes were disingenuous. Romney believes what he is campaigning on. Other than the Mormon issue, which Mitt will need to address again, the two aren't all that far apart.

What I am a little nervous about with Fred is that he appears ideologically driven. It may be unfair to say that without some more research on my part, but I'm going to say it here, anyway. I think, as Repubs, we have a good mixture of ideas. I only hope we do not allow ideology to overshadow reality. Sometimes reality is a harder sell, but it pays off well in the long run.

FairTax: Is it really that fair?

I will begin by admitting ignorance on this issue. There is a movement afoot to replace the federal taxation system with a national sales tax. It has been floated around for years, but it apparently has been introduced by a bill in Congress. While I am not coming out against it just yet, I am also very hesitant to endorse it.

I will try to include links as I find them. I think this is worthy of investigation, and we should be fully aware of the ramifications before accepting such a drastic overhaul.

Here are a few I have found so far:

Off the Fence (Plain Language Explanation)
FairTax.org (frequently asked questions)

I have a few concerns:
1. It may not be as fair as it sounds. As members of the Mormon church, we pay a tithe of 10%. Having had good years and poor years, I can confidently attest to the fact that 10% becomes more of a sacrifice the lower one's income falls. To give you an example, someone making $300 per week (approximately $15,000 annually) will pay $30 in tithing. Doesn't sound like much, until you look at everything else that has to come out of the leftovers. Just to pay rent will likely consume almost two weeks' income. And that is for basic comforts. Contrast that with the person making $1500 per week ($approx $76,000 annually). He will pay $150 per week, but the $1350 remaining will go a lot further. He can likely pay his mortgage in one week, and his house will be one of choice, rather than necessity. He will then have more discretionary income left over the rest of the month.
This is not an attempt at class warfare. I have no problem with successful people. It usually denotes people who have made better decisions, or taken advantage of opportunities. But, in the current tax situation, the first fellow, if he has a family, will likely have no federal taxes taken out of his check. Thus, he is living mostly free of federal taxation. Under the FairTax plan, he will receive a prebate, based on, presumably, what he would be expected to purchase. But does this take into account that he was already living on moneys not already taxed? On that income, every dollar has more value to the wage-earner.

2. The presumption seems to be that companies, relieved of corporate taxes, will magically reflect this relief in their pricing structures. I can't buy into this. I am not saying that business execs are evil, any more than politicians. But the maxim would seem to hold that once assessed, taxes seldom are revoked. Thus, while those who are taxed in their paychecks might see more money on the front end, those who had enjoyed the lower withholding (and have adapted their budget to survive at that level) will now be faced with disproportionately higher retail prices (at least until the markets supposedly adjust, as it is presumed the free market will cause to happen).

3. How will this affect charity? Do corporations really donate to charities out of the goodness of their hearts?

4. Will this new plan help us to live more free from government entanglement? Or will it exacerbate the situation?

Just a few concerns... What do you think?