Bless His Heart

There is a long-standing social rule that permits speaking ill of another so long as you, at some point during the conversation, bless that person's heart.

Ted Kennedy, bless his heart, is nothing more than the fortunate son of a wealthy businessman who knew how to buy his way into politics. While my heart goes out to him as a person for having to deal with such tragic news, there will be no love lost at his departure from the political arena. The stations all played his eulogy while he is still breathing. But there are many things they 'forgot' to include in all Ted's accomplishments, not the least of which was his beating the wrap for driving drunk and leaving a woman to die in a river. There was also his overcoming the problems most people face when caught cheating on their bar exams. More subtle among his accomplishments was his keen ability to avoid the controversy most senators would be subjected to were they to publicly call judicial nominees 'neanderthals' at a press conference. From what I could gather from the many eulogies was that he is most notable for outliving his brothers.

John McCain, bless his heart, is now coming under fire for being supported by a Christian minister who doesn't believe in Islam. Maybe this minister, bless his heart, could have been less controversial if, instead of using his pulpit to call for Christians to be Christians and not Islams, he had called for blacks to rise up against the white man. You know, though, if these ministers would just stick to teaching Christians how to be Christian, and not how not to be something else, or what political stand they should take, it seems they could do more good and avoid all this controversy. Like one wise leader once said, when asked why his church doesn't take political sides, "We teach the people good principles, and they govern themselves."

The California Supreme Court, bless their hearts, overturned the overwhelming will of the people to give the making of a lifestyle choice special constitutional protection. I think the Washington supreme court got it right when they held that a gay man has as much of a right to marry a gay woman as does a straight man or a straight woman. The law doesn't allow a straight man to marry another man, so there is no equal protection problem. The courts have to be very careful when they start subjecting marriage and family laws to strict constitutional scrutiny, as most courts have admitted that most such laws would fail. Those laws have traditionally been reserved to the states, and have been largely exempt from strict constitutional scrutiny for very good reasons. They serve society well by establishing a foundation for its perpetuity and moral guidance.

Our editorial page editor in Fayetteville, bless his heart, thinks that those Conservatives who want to make the California supreme court's (bless their hearts) decision a central issue in the campaign are interfering with the political process because Hussein Obama, bless his heart, thinks, we should instead be focusing on the major... social... ills... of our time. (?!) Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking, too. If gay marriage is not a major social ill...?

Let me know who else's heart needs a blessing.

Tired of Crud? Vote Judd!

Finally, some excitement has entered the Campaign. Voters in Idaho now have a real choice... Hillary, Osama... or Judd. (Thanks for the heads up, Norm!)

This blog has decided to donate some space as the official "Judd's Yer Budd" website.
So... here's the space:

Persecution or Prosecution

Disclaimer: I am a Mormon. I do not support the practice of polygamy as a religious proscription. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the real Mormons) have not condoned the practice for over a hundred years. In fact, the Church has very diligently cleansed itself of polygamous sympathizers. I do not sympathize with the FLDS group (a breakaway from the Church at about the time the Church stopped the practice) in that I do not think that they are doctrinally correct by practicing polygamy.

Having said all that, what is occurring in Texas is religious persecution. The phone call was all that was needed for authorities to sweep in with all the firepower and grand standing of Waco and kidnap children and women, virtually putting an end to an unpopular religious sect. If they were really worried about the sexual abuse, they would have carefully sought out the men and mothers who were actively participatory in such abuse, and left the rest alone. But no. In all their religious zeal, social workers, law enforcement officers, and Baptist bus drivers "rescued" these poor, misguided, 19th Century homemakers and children from a life of protection against the outside evils of the world, throwing them instead into our "enlightened" society with its permissive promiscuity, wink-wink religiosioty, and "our young'uns' well-being is so important to us we leave them with a stranger 10 hours a day so we can afford our brick-and-granite mansions with no yard just to keep up with the Joneses" mentality.

It is interesting that we forbid gay marriage, but we permit homosexual and adulterous activities, fraught with dangerous diseases, broken families and bastardized children, and child sexual abuse; yet we outlaw polygamy, the emphasis of which is about strengthening and supporting the family and caring for children. Yes, it carries with it the potential for child abuse as is alleged in this case, but so does any relationship where children are involved. Child abuse happens. It should be pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, because we do not like child abusers. Children are special and sacred.

I am not advocating that we should sanction polygamy, just as I do not advocate that we should sanction homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. But we do not outlaw homosexual activity, nor even adulterous activity. Why do we outlaw polygamy? Because we are a religiously intolerant people. We have our First Amendment, and sometimes it means something. But majority religions have always felt threatened by minority religions. So as long we keep such statutes on the books, we can summon the power of the State to swoop in to put an end to these unpopular sects and organizations that challenge any beliefs with we have become so comfortable.

When the Church fought the anti-bigamy laws in the courts, they argued First Amendment issues. Today, there is a stronger case for Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection arguments. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. I can see Supreme Court arguments on the matter. Although I do not know whether they would prevail, I think they could be very compelling.