If Proposition 8 Fails

The Coalition behind Proposition 8 has published six consequences it asserts will happen if the voters reject Prop 8:

1. "Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage."

The California Education Code section 51890 does require that "public school...pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of...marriage and parenthood..." It seems this language will result in children being taught that same-sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage, and to that I am unalterably opposed. The Coalition got this one right.

2. "Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public."

Section D, page 117 of the California Supreme Court Majority Opinion, as published on the court's website, does say, "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)72." Since I am not an attorney, I am not sure what that may eventually mean, though it does not seem to me to indemnify any church from a lawsuit of any kind. As a layman, it seems to me probable that someone will attempt to sue churches over this issue. Absent evidence to the contrary, I agree with the Coalition on this one.

3. "Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there."

The Catholic Charities statement is a fact. Apparently, Massachusetts law required them to place children with same-sex couples. I do not know of any such law in California, but Massachusetts is clearly a precedent and the slope seems very slippery to me. I am unalterably opposed to placing children for adoption by same-sex couples.

4. "Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits."

This statement is believable to me. If such requirements were to occur, they would violate the constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

5. "Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California held that municipal employees may not say: "traditional marriage" or "family values" because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is 'hate speech'."

You can read about the referenced California case here, and yes, it was the Ninth Circuit. The case is a narrow one applied to municipal employees acting in their official capacity. Apparently, the case has been appealed upward. Again, I am not a lawyer, but if saying the words, "traditional family" or "family values" makes me a criminal, guilty as charged.

6. "It will cost you money. The change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g. photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors).

I may be a bit neanderthal here, but I think the choice to refuse an elective service to anyone should be a right of the provider. However, I do have difficulty seeing how defending such suits will cost ME money. Once I give money to the Church, that money is no longer mine, but the Church's to do with as it thinks best. I generally don't give money to the Church with preconditions.

I think the Coalition is largely on target in its views in this piece. I hope the Coalition will take the high road in this campaign. Though I think I understand the Church's decision to join the Coalition, surrendering control of Church resources makes me nervous. Certain campaign tactics ought to be beneath any church-funded campaign, including name calling, lying, threatening, or fear mongering. The Church's official statements on this issue have been impeccably, rationally, and respectfully expressed and, for that, I am deeply relieved and thankful.

I am not sure I would want to remain a citizen of California should Prop 8 fail.

Character and Competence, Not Gender

Voting for a woman for VP solely because she is female is to spit on the legitimate achievements of women like Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Angela Merkel, Micheline Calmy-Ray, Mary McAleese, et.al.

I think anyone who votes either for or against any candidate on a presidential ticket solely because of their gender should be stripped of the right to vote for being terminally stupid.

OK, That's a Jawdropper

John McCain chooses Sarah Palin as his Veep.

Who?

Early reports of her background: spunky lady, not afraid of the old boy network, self-styled "hockey mom". Apparently was able to whip Wasilla, Alaska into great shape as its mayor--only two years ago.

Then the report that McCain met her for the first time only six months ago, and has spoken with her only once at any length length--the Veep job interview.

If McCain gets elected, she will be only one very old heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States.

With a single stroke, McCain has taken the "experience" club with which he has tried to pummel Obama right out of his own hand. Palin has ZERO military or foreign policy experience.

I think the press and the Democrats are about have a field day feasting on some fresh meat. If the Democrats are half-smart, they'll let the press do most of the bashing lest the Dems appear unchivalrous.

But more importantly, how can anyone think this choice reflects well on McCain's judgment? He is OLD. If he dies, who wants someone in the Presidency who is only two years removed from running a city that claims a whopping 6,715 residents? Is she gonna stare down Putin? Contain Iran's nuclear ambitions? Broker peace between the Shia and Sunni? Bring a two-state solution to life in Israel? Does she even know anyone qualified enough to ask them to be on her presidential team?

I'm not often at a loss for words, but I'm aghast and flummoxed. So far, she doesn't strike me as Maggie Thatcher-caliber. I think the press will be on Palin like Gallagher on a watermelon.

Wisdom from Fareed

"As it enters the 21st century, the United States is not fundamentally a weak economy, or a decadent society. But it has developed a highly dysfunctional politics. An antiquated and overly rigid system to begin with--about 225 years old--has been captured by money, special interests, a sensationalist media, and ideological attack groups. The result is ceaseless, violent debate about trivia--politics as theater--and very little substance, compromise, and action. A "can-do" country is now saddled with a "do-nothing" political process, designed for partisan battle rather than problem solving. By every measure--the growth of special interests, lobbies, pork-barrel spending--the political process has become far more partisan and ineffective over the last three decades."

-- Fareed Zakaria, "The Post-American World"

Moving the Mountain

"And Jesus said unto them, Because of your ^aunbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have ^bfaith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this ^cmountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be ^dimpossible unto you." -- Matthew 17:20

I came, I saw, I moved the mountain that was the garage.

Lola can now have a king-sized bed.

Greater love hath no husband than this: that he cleaneth out the garage for his wife's car.

(I think I need traction and IV fluids.)

Ten-Mile

It had to happen sooner or later.

This morning we racked up our still unnamed bikes and headed to a small parking space not far from Kramer Avenue the 91 freeway. A ten minute drive and another ten minutes of prep and we were riding along the Santa Ana River Channel, the longest continuous biking/walking path in Orange County.

The trail is paved and maintained, with marked portions for vehicles and pedestrians. The only significant hills are when you cross under a bridge.

You wouldn't expect to see a lot of water in the channel in high summer, and you'd be right. But there was enough running water to host quite a few waterbirds of many kinds: ducks, sandpipers, terns, herons, gulls...you name it. The waterbird diversity couldn't compare with the human kind! You see all sorts of people on the trail on a Saturday morning. Always, of course, the "serious" riders, properly attired in their spandex jersey of choice and riding bikes that cost as much as our car. Funny, not many of them seemed to recognize a nodded hello. Then you have the more laid back crowd...the mountain biking yuppies, the beach cruiser teenagers, the families with a passle of kids in tow on their BMX bikes. Can't forget the free spirits of the cycling world...the tandem riders and the recumbent pilots. An interesting lot, to be sure!

We made our way south past the Honda Center and The Big A--Angel Stadium (photographic proof offered at right). Altogether, we did 10 miles, with stops for pictures, in an hour's leisurely ride. Saturday morning could be a lot worse. :-)

HEY, MARTHA!

In the journalism industry, a story like this is called a "Hey Martha!" because it is something you want to call your spouse over to behold.

I have an engineering degree, but often refer to myself as "having escaped" the engineer worldview and mindset. Apparently, I have a vestigial "inner techie" down deep somewhere, and this sure tickled it.

I'm not sure how practical it will turn out be, but the folks at Boston Dynamics have themselves one impressive technological achievement. I especially recommend the ice patch scene.



After you watch the video, you can understand how impressive this thing is. The engineers have basically reproduced all of the human central nervous system functions that have to do with maintaining balance while in motion, all in three dimensions. They have replicated the functionality of the inner ear, arm and leg muscles, joints, and the neural pathways of the brain that process all the information in real-time.

And the dang thing will carry a 350 pound payload while it's doing all this.

(For all you non-techies, this would be the appropriate place to say, W O W!)

For more information, click here.

Tuppence a Bag

Yep, I'm a bird guy. Go figure. Feeders stuffed with seeds in the back yard. Rent-free nests for the doves on the front porch. A whole liter of buzz juice just hanging there for the hummers.

This is what happens when you spike the birdbath with Red Bull.

The Veepstakes

It was John Nance Garner, Veep to FDR in 1932, who once described the U.S. vice presidency as "not worth a bucket of warm p***." (Yes, that is the original quote, later euphemized by the press.) So why all the hubbub over McCain's and Obama's picks?

In recent history, candidates have chosen veep running mates primarily to gain votes in crucial states where polls may tip the entire election one way or another.The degree to which a veep's functional strengths compliment the ticket has been a secondary consideration.

In McCain's case, the selection has added import because of his age. Political correctness aside, he is statistically much more likely to die in office than Obama would be. McCain also needs to throw Evangelicals a big bone, and picking a veep they could tolerate (i.e., anyone but Romney) would boost McCain in that constituency. On the other hand, Romney would probably be one of the most conservative choices McCain could make. If McCain decides to call the Evangelicals' bluff and try to connect to bedrock conservatives, Romney is a smart choice. He also would bring economic cred to a ticket that seems to lack it.

I think Obama's strongest move would be to turn the system on its ear by choosing Colin Powell. Powell would bring instant foreign policy and military cred with integrity. (I believe most people have forgiven Powell for letting Bush dupe him into being the point man for bagging U.N. support for the Iraq invasion.) Choosing a veep from the other party would be a resounding bow shot across the deck of partisan politics in Washington. Obama also has less of a challenge in mollifying the traditional Democratic base; after eight years of Bush, they'll turn out to vote ANYONE but a Republican into office. Joe Biden would be a gesture to old Washington, and I doubt he'll get the nod despite the current buzz. Biden has played the game for a long time, building his rolodex and resume, but has never seemed to able to sparkle. Governor Sebelius would be a moderate way to get female votes without having to deal with the political baggage Billary would bring to the ticket.

My biggest fear is that Obama will succumb to pure political pressure to select Hillary as veep. If he does that, he will lose my vote and I will have a lot of 'splainin' to do here.

Prop 8 Caps Lock

As I have talked with people about Proposition 8, I have found that the amount of foam in the corners of their mouths is frequently inversely proportional to their understanding of the facts surrounding the issue. This condition seems to affect both sides of the debate.

Get a grip, folks. Do your homework. A little less volume and foam, a lot more thoughtfulness, and the emergency defibrillator can stay packed away.

And, in addition to retaining my hearing, I will not have to clean my spectacles quite so often.

More Wisdom from Harry

"Virtue cannot be redefined according to circumstances or need...we put at risk not just the country's long-term well-being but our own when we imagine that it can."

-- Harry Stein

Mr. Timely Strikes Again

I'm always just about ten full years behind the curve. Any curve. Fashion, markets, technology, you name it.

In excavating my garage, I came across a conglomeration of sports cards from the 80s and 90s. I carefully culled the stuff that might be worth something: factory-sealed box sets, autographed cards of famous players, etc. A cursory examination of Internet sites devoted to such things returned a possible retail value of $600 for my cullings.

Then a trip to the local E-Bay drop off and a visit to a sportscard specialty store (now bare to the walls) served as a 2by4 to the noggin. The market done gone!

Most of you prolly already knew that. But like I said, I'm ten years behind the curve.


It might be worth your while if you have any pre-1970 cards, especially rookie cards of now-famous players. The Mickey Mantle rookie card pictured here will net you a cool $300,000 if you can just find it in your garage muck.

Having been painfully and embarrassingly schooled, I'm off to see where I can buy some camo pants and an aloha shirt.

Darwin Swims in the Mortgage Gene Pool

After reviewing at least a dozen sources, the best guess I can make about how many mortgages are in foreclosure in this country is about two percent. Another six percent or so and "not current" in their payments. That leaves about 92 percent of the mortgages in this country functioning just fine.

So, eight percent of home buyers are sinking instead of swimming. How many of them are victims of "predatory lenders"? Again, estimates are all over the map, but most seem to hover somewhere around 20%.

Do I feel sorry for the folks in foreclosure? Well, for all but a very few of them, the answer is, "no". I think there is some small percentage that are truly hard luck cases that might earn some of my sympathy. Unfortunately, my sympathy and a dollar will buy these folks a Coke. What they really need is the sympathy of their mortgage company, and that ain't coming any time soon. We all play by the same rules here.

I have zero sympathy for anyone who is defaulting on a mortgage for a second home, a vacation getaway, or a rental property. And, frankly, I have zero sympathy for people who just had a tough time getting their brains around the "adjustable rate" concept. There really are no mulligans in mortgages--lenders are ubiquitously serious to all borrowers, without regard to gender, race, religion, or any other characteristic a debtor might try to hide behind.

Not that I have any sympathy at all for the lenders who dreamed this mess up in the pursuit of ever increasing profits. As usual, government regulators have reacted long after the horses are out of the barn. Still, the government posse should round up and shoot the worst offenders.

So, how much will it cost YOU, the American taxpayer, to throw a lifesaver to these intellectually challenged, greedy, and profligate parties?

Oh, about $600 Billion. That is enough money to fully fund health insurance for 75 million Americans for a year.

For that kind of money, I say, kick them all out of the mortgage pool for a long timeout. Then hire someone to scoop out all the dookie they left in the water, then declare "Adult Swim" only for the next five years or so. People that dumb and/or greedy don't deserve to be in the mortgage gene pool.

What Bush Got Right

I am no fan of George Bush. I think he leads with his gut more than his head, and his gut has gotten this country into a heap of trouble.

Still, this week's Newsweek cover story is interesting. Fareed Zakaria, a dispassionately effective critic of the Bushies, writes convincingly about what the current administration has actually done right. (Well, lately anyway.) I recommend the article highly--it is intelligent, honest, verifiable, and well written (all hallmarks of Zakaria's writing).

I do find it interesting that as the second term Bush administration has (almost covertly) shifted its policies and practices to correct the mistakes of the first term, it has converged on many of Barack Obama's stated policies and objectives. Iran is a perfect example. Obama has long called for talks with Iran about its nuclear program. McCain says he would never talk with Iran. After anointing Iran as a charter member of the "Axis of Evil" at the start of his first term, Bush now has Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns meeting with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

If you enjoy Zakaria's substance and style, I recommend his book, The Post-American World for a preview of global social/political/economic developments during the next 50 years. You can watch Zakaria discuss his book here.

More Truth About Marriage

As the battle of California ballot Proposition 8 gears up, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has just released a new document laying out its official views concerning so-called "gay marriage". You can see the full document text here.

I found the document to be clear, considerate, and well-written. But that's my opinion--read the document and get your own!

Taking on the ACLU

The ACLU is an organization often maligned by political conservatives. Putatively, it seeks merely to preserve individual rights granted by the "Bill of Rights" and other subsequent amendments to the U.S Constitution. It also seeks to extend those rights to groups to which they have been traditionally denied. In doing so, it has actually taken up causes from all sides of the political spectrum, not merely the "left".

When they show up in court, you trifle with them at your own peril. The lawyers who work for them are smart, powerful, and generally very committed since they all work pro bono. Fighting them is generally difficult and expensive.

They have actually done some pretty admirable things in this labor of love. I can't say I automatically disagree with their positions; if they are involved, the issue is generally worth some consideration.

My problem with them begins when, by employing a rigid ideology and a literal interpretation of law with a bias toward absolute freedom, they end up "preserving" or "extending" a personal right that may not actually exist.

For example, I have a problem with the degree to which the separation of church and state has been prosecuted. My feeling is that the founding fathers' intent was to insure that no single, state-sponsored religion existed, or could be imposed on anyone. Although I think religion should not be worn on your sleeve, I am at odds with the numerous proscriptions of the public practice of religion. If someone wishes to take a moment to face east and pray at a specified time of day, and they happen to be at the mall, how does that injure me if I am walking by? Let them pray to who or whatever they wish, as long as they allow me the same right.

I also have a hard time with anyone who champions the legalization of harmful drugs; drugs that cannot have any real therapeutic benefit except for momentary detachment from reality. IMHO, alcohol falls in this same category. Alcohol and nicotine are the last non-prescription legal drugs, and together they have ruined far more lives than all illegal drugs put together. We tried getting rid of alcohol once, and couldn't make it work. That failure does not make the horrible damage alcohol does any less pernicious. I cannot condone any effort by the ACLU (or any other group) to legalize the private use of any such harmful substances.

How can anyone defend the business of pornography? It is a blight on our society and it, too, has ruined lives. Now we're awash in it and the ranks of addicts grow by the day. If someone wants to do something in the privacy of their own home, among consenting adults, that is their right. (Believe me, I'm no prude.) But I cannot believe the BUSINESS of pornography is a "victimless" crime. How many women have had their relationships with men (and vice versa) shattered by its influence? How many children have been forever injured as unwitting or unwilling victims of its production? How is that defensible at all, much less for the profit it brings its purveyors? How hollow does the exalted term, "freedom of speech" ring against the ravaged lives in pornography's wake?

Abortion is always a hot button issue. I do not equate it with murder, but I think it is close. It ought to be MUCH rarer than it is. There are times when I think it is absolutely justified, such as cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is truly endangered. Still, I believe this terribly difficult decision ought to have NOTHING to do with convenience, or preserving a lifestyle. Even so, I absolutely condemn the actions of those who have taken the law into their own hands to try to stop its legal practice.

Suicide? Another very hot button. My personal belief is that God schedules our arrival here on earth, and ought to schedule our departure. Having said that, I do not believe in keeping anyone alive on a machine who has zero chance of ever being anything more than a vegetable. If the ACLU thinks otherwise, I oppose them.

Fat and Fit? Maybe...

Here's one in the eye of all the "sizist" elite out there. Yeah, you people who eat like pigs, never exercise, and still look like a prisoner of war (and won't let the rest of us forget about it)--read this and beware.

Name Those Bikes!

Here is Lola, all strapped up and ready to carry us to the next exciting bike trail:


(No, the purple bike is Kathleen's, NOT mine.)

Today has been full of cycling mileposts. New shoes and speedometer for Kathleen, and a scouting trip the to the Santa Ana River Bed trail access sites (found one at Lincoln and Batavia). The evening found us at Craig Regional Park doing a quick five miles over moderately hilly terrain in 35 minutes.

We've had no trouble naming important things in our lives: kids, cars, pets, body parts, etc., but we're looking for some help naming our bikes! If you're feeling creative, turn your brain on and suggest the two best names for our bikes. Submit the winning entry and you'll win dinner for two at your favorite restaurant! You can make your submission by leaving a comment on this post. Pass the word :-D

New Specs

I got me some new specs.



Now if I could just get me some new pecs.

The Gambler

An old, but true, adage:

If you have been playing poker for twenty minutes, and have not yet figured out who the patsy is,

YOU'RE THE PATSY.

Wind in My Hair and Bugs in My Teeth

If the ACLU wants my vote for a "personal liberty" cause, I wonder if they could get the government off my back about seat belts and motorcycle helmets. I'm a big fan of "that government is best which governs least". If I'm a competent, licensed adult with medical insurance who wants to fly down the road on a motorcycle with the wind in my hair and the bugs in my teeth, why should that be any of the government's business? Who, other than myself, am I hurting by engaging in such reckless daredevilry? How far should the government be allowed to go to protect me from myself? Ditto seat belts. Yes, I know the statistics. Yes, I'm generally responsible. Still, the government's reach into my personal life this way irritates something primal inside me.

Representation, Shmepresentation

Even though government has repeatedly proven itself to be (at best) inept and (at worst) injurious in managing public funds and providing public services, I admit that modern life requires some form of income tax. I am willing to pay my “fair share”, whatever that is.

I agree with Ron Paul that our current taxation system and its enforcer (the IRS) have become perhaps the most hideous example of good governmental intentions gone horribly, grotesquely wrong (OK, the Social Security Administration is a close second). The IRS employs over 100,000 people. How many millions of business and personal tax professionals are there? How did taxation get to be a career, let alone a growth industry?

I resent a system that requires me to calculate how much tax I owe and then penalizes me when I guess wrong at the end of the tax year. I resent a system that lets very rich people pay nothing at all. Yes, I know that people above a certain income level pay the great percentage of the total tax taken by the government, but that is NOT my my point. No one who makes a ton of money in this country should skate for free.

I am strongly in favor of a flat income tax for this country--ten percent for the bulk of citizens, 25% over a certain income, a graded scale from nine down to zero percent for those below the poverty line-- no exemptions, no credits, and no deductions.

Failing that, I believe some kind of consumption tax would still be better than the current income taxation system.

Worshipping at the Cathedral of Baseball

"I see great things in baseball. It's our game... The American game... It will repair our losses and be a blessing to us."

-- Walt Whitman



"Yeah, I was in the show. I was in the show for 21 days once - the 21 greatest days of my life. You know, you never handle your luggage in the show, somebody else carries your bags. It was great. You hit white balls for batting practice, the ballparks are like cathedrals, the hotels all have room service, and the women all have long legs and brains."

-- Crash Davis, "Bull Durham"



Angel tickets on the third base line at a sold-out game for my 53rd birthday: $0 (gift from my son)

Bag of peanuts: $5 (someone has to pay for Arte Moreno's retirement)

Dog and a bee...umm...diet Coke: $12.50 (someone has to pay for Mrs. Moreno's retirement too)

Watching my beloved Angels put on a stunningly weak hitting performance and lose the ball game: Minor psychic pain

Watching a 28 year-old by the name of Chris Walters who, after NINE YEARS pitching in the minor leagues (and compiling an overall losing record there), made his major league debut tonight and held the best team in baseball to a single hit through eight scoreless innings: Major psychic pleasure

Chris Walters

Watching the boys of summer on a perfect evening with my eldest son: Priceless

Does He Snore?

And now for something completely different...

And prolly TMI...

If you are one of those lucky souls who sleep with someone whose snoring regularly sets off the CalTech seismograph, you might want to read on.


This handy little item may be something worth investigating:

Yes, its appearance does provoke fanciful speculations about Christmas tree ornaments or medieval torture devices. It's actually an appliance that a dentist could make especially for your sonically gifted bed partner. The bar on the lower guard nestles in the hook on the upper guard, which is on the end of a screw. Turning the screw handle pulls the lower jaw forward and holds it there all night, keeping the airway wide open continuously. The idea is that a wide open airway minimizes the snoring. And saves your marriage.

*AHEM*

Of course, women never snore. Or burp. Or fart...which is why talking is the only thing that keeps them from exploding.

Speaking Truth to Political Correctness

My intent in the first installment of my thoughts on the “gay marriage” issue, entitled “Judging the California Supremes”, was to strip away as much of the emotionally charged blathering about the court’s decision as possible and focus on the facts of the case. At the end of that post, I promised another installment laying out my personal opinions on the entire issue and its meaning for our society. I herewith fulfill that promise.

One of the evident dysfunctions in this debate is the undisciplined malice with which pejorative labels are hurled between both sides of the issue. Opponents of gay marriage sometimes use hateful terms like “fags”, “homos” and other maledictions that will not see print here. Proponents of gay marriage are fond of hurling the “homophobes” and “bashers” labels. I cannot see any benefit whatsoever to anyone from such discourse and I wish it would stop (though I know it won’t). I will never personally engage in it.

For the record, I am opposed to the concept of “gay marriage”. The fact that I have a difference of opinion with its proponents does not mean I hate them, fear them, or wish them harm of any kind. All it means is that I respectfully disagree with them. I resent any accusation to the contrary.

One very important thing I think proponents of “gay marriage” should acknowledge is that any change in the legal definition of marriage would NOT be a change just for them; it would be a change for everyone in our society. There will never be two definitions of marriage, only one. That one definition will affect all of us, including me, so I think I am as entitled to my opinion as they are to theirs.

From a purely legal point of view, I believe there are documentable flaws in the majority opinion of the court that could certainly be reasonably challenged. Three of the seven justices did so, and their arguments are not without merit. Nevertheless, having previously stipulated that I am no lawyer, I will defer to those who are qualified to express those arguments competently.

I believe very strongly in personal and family privacy. I want neither the government nor the Church in my bedroom as long as I am not violating their laws. I afford the same consideration to all other people.

Having said that…

I have a firm and deep faith in a God who has provided guidance on these complex and sensitive issues through scripture, and through living men whom I believe to be His prophets in our day.

Old Testament teachings concerning homosexual behavior include Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. The latter verse might leave a modern lawyer some wiggle room to defend a client, but the prescribed penalty for conviction is clear and severe. New Testament teachings include a specific prescription by the Savior in Mark 10:7 establishing marriage as being heterosexual in nature.

The Church’s official comments on same-gender attraction may be summarized as follows:

Advocates on either side of the issue often result to name calling and labeling. Having a different opinion is no crime, and should not result in venomous slander. Reasonably disagreeing with proponents of “gay marriage” does not mean the Church is narrow-minded, bigoted, or irrational.

The issue as more than social; it is also a test of basic religious freedom to take a stand based on Church doctrine and principles, and to teach accordingly.

Having homosexual inclinations or feelings is not sinful; acting on them is. This principle applies to ALL Church members and to ALL types of thoughts/desires/behaviors that are contrary to God’s revealed commandments.

The Church views the word “homosexual” as an adjective, not a noun. The Church believes it is erroneous and harmful to see one’s sexual orientation as the sole measure of one’s identity. We are all far more than our sexual orientation; it alone is NOT the defining fact of our existence. There are many other characteristics that constitute who we are. The one characteristic the Church suggests every person adopt is that we are all children of a loving God, all born to this earth for a purpose, and all born with a divine destiny. This characteristic is universal, and probably the most important of all the characteristics that constitute a human identity.

The Church’s standard concerning sexual behavior is the same for all members, without exception of any kind. In 1991, the First Presidency of the Church formally stated, “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

The Church teaches that homosexual feelings are controllable just as many other feelings leading to sin are controllable. The Church recognizes that individuals may be especially susceptible to one kind of feeling or another, but that feelings and behavior can be controlled.

The notion that simply because someone has an inclination to do something they must inevitably do it is one of the great sophistries of our age.

The Church does not believe anyone is born with the absolute inability to eventually succeed in controlling their own eternal destiny, though for some that will be accomplished after mortality. The Church does not take an official position on the “nature vs. nurture” question.

The Church teaches that marriage should never be viewed as a form of “therapy” for individuals who are attempting to control homosexual feelings. Such individuals cannot enter a marriage in good faith.

The Church teaches that same-gender attraction did not exist before mortality and shall not exist thereafter.

The Church defines the “fullness of joy” offered to all of God’s children after mortality, and defined as the very purpose of our existence, as an eternal family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. From the eternal perspective, the sterile, barren nature of homosexual unions is a recipe for an eternal loss of potential joy.

The tragic circumstance of not being able to marry is not unique to those with homosexual feelings. There are many who shall never marry in mortality due to no fault of their own, and who will have that opportunity in the next life.

Church members who do not act on their same-gender attraction feelings are in no way limited relative to heterosexual members when it comes to participation in the Church. Referring to such members, President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “We love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church.”

The Church views marriage as a matter of neither politics nor social policy, but as a divinely defined institution. It is a core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called “same-gender marriage”. Homosexual behavior is, and will always be, an abominable sin before the Lord. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.

Proponents of “gay marriage” falsely argue that the concept will have no effect on the traditional institution of heterosexual marriage. If you change the definition of an institution, you change its basic nature FOR EVERYONE, not just the proponents of the change. The coexistence of two types of marriages is a definitional impossibility. The burden of proof that changing the institution in such a radical way will not undo the wisdom and stability of millennia of human experience lies on the proponents of the change, not on the practitioners of the traditional institution.

The Church supports an amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that marriage is and can only be between a man and a woman.

In summary, the Church’s position on same-gender attraction and “gay marriage” is:

“God loves all of His children. He has provided a plan for His children to enjoy the choicest blessings that He has to offer in eternity. Those choicest blessings are associated with marriage between a man and a woman by appropriate priesthood authority to bring together a family unit for creation and happiness in this life and in the life to come.

We urge persons with same-gender attractions to control those and to refrain from acting upon them, which is a sin, just as we urge persons with heterosexual attractions to refrain from acting upon them until they have the opportunity for a marriage recognized by God as well as by the law of the land. That is the way to happiness and eternal life. God has given us no commandment that He will not give us the strength and power to observe. That is the Plan of Salvation for His children, and it is our duty to proclaim that plan, to teach its truth, and to praise God for the mission of His Son Jesus Christ. It is Christ’s atonement that makes it possible for us to be forgiven of our sins and His resurrection that gives us the assurance of immortality and the life to come. It is that life to come that orients our views in mortality and reinforces our determination to live the laws of God so that we can qualify for His blessings in immortality.”

I think the only thing I can add to that clear declaration of truth is, "Amen".

What Was McCain Thinking?

If John McCain loses the election, and is licking his wounds in December, I think he will look back to the recent "rock star" attack ad and ask himself, "WHAT WAS I THINKING?"

The ad attempts to make Obama's popularity seem false; that is delusional. Obama IS that popular. He is also substantial--smart, realistic, a great communicator, and charismatic. To be technical--John McCain can't carry Obama's communicator jockstrap, and the world knows it. Even his own campaign staffers and major contributors acknowledge it.

Paris Hilton's parents contributed the legal maximum to McCain's campaign...I wonder how they will vote now that he has publicly insulted their daughter. (She is an easy target, and perhaps even a deserving one-- but how smart is it to show the world how petty and cruel you can be by publicly humiliating another human being like that? If there ever were any doubts about McCain's storied temper and vindictiveness, he just nuked them.)

I think this ad will backfire in a most embarrassing way.