Mormons and Guilt

For many people, guilt and religion seem to be joined at the hip. Both the Jewish and Catholic faiths occupy positions of preeminence in the pop culture ratings of guilt factories, but take my word for it--Mormons are probably not far behind.

I have a little problem with that. Allow me to explain.

People of faith are often, by nature, people who care about their own performance relative to religious standards. That is an intrinsically good thing. It can also be a very bad thing when the guilt someone is feeling is false. In my opinion, false guilt is a plague within the Church. It can fill one with negative, debilitating feelings that are not easily resolved. Those feelings can make life miserable and make the sufferer unable to function or serve effectively in the Church.

When it comes to guilt, what is the difference between the genuine item and the fake?

Two things are requisite to invoke feelings of guilt:

1) A moral standard against which actual behavior is measured.
2) A moral compass that performs this measurement and informs our brain and heart of the results.

Almost every sane person of accountable age has a working moral compass. Those who do not (including the very young and the mentally ill) are not held accountable for consequences of their faulty moral compasses. We often refer to this compass as a "conscience", and read about it in Moroni 7:16. "For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God."

If one's moral compass is working as designed, where does false guilt find its root? It rises from the application of a false moral standard.

False moral standards come in many forms, and can produce feelings of guilt that are entirely unnecessary and futile. These false standards can include:

- the arbitrary opinions and expectations we allow others to impose on us
- our self-delusional efforts to create and maintain a "perfect" outward appearance to others
- traditions of our religious culture wrongly interpreted as doctrines or commandments from God

Allowing such false standards to fill us with false guilt is worthy of the rebuke the Lord delivered in D&C 30:1--"...you have feared man and have not relied on me for strength as you ought."

I believe there is one, and only one, legitimate moral standard for behavior for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That standard is obedience to the commandments of God as they are delivered to us by His prophets, seers, and revelators, and administered by the legitimate chain of priesthood authority down to the local level. Doctrine & Covenants 59:21 supports this view: "And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments." The guilt resulting from failure to control one's behavior to conform to this standard is absolutely legitimate, and should become a mainspring for sincere repentance. The Apostle Paul contrasted legitimate guilt with false guilt in his second epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 7 verse 10: "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death."

It seems to me that living in conformity with the one legitimate moral standard we have as members of the Church should be, must be, can only be a full-time job. I submit that any time and effort we spend attempting to satisfy any false standard detracts directly and proportionately from the legitimate process of becoming spiritually mature. And that, it seems to me, is exactly what the Adversary desires.

As we seek to eliminate false guilt and focus our time and energy on achieving legitimate spiritual growth, I believe it is essential to hearken to living prophets. To that end, I offer the following:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve taught, "The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation."

Elder Russell M. Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve taught, "I hope it goes without saying that guilt is not a proper motivational technique for leaders and teachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must always motivate through love and sincere appreciation, not by creating guilt...Still there are those who experience some feelings of guilt as a consequence of their service in the Church. These feelings can come when our time and attention are being torn between competing demands and priorities. As mortals, we simply cannot do everything at once. Therefore we must do all things “in wisdom and order” (Mosiah 4:27). Often that will mean temporarily postponing attention to one priority in order to take care of another. Sometimes family demands will require your full attention. Other times professional responsibilities will come first. And there will be times when Church callings will come first. Good balance comes in doing things in a timely way and in not procrastinating our preparation or waiting to fulfill our responsibilities until the last minute."

Finally, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf taught, "True repentance blesses our lives with the effects of the Atonement: we feel God’s forgiveness and His peace, and our guilt and sorrow are lifted away; we enjoy the influence of the Spirit in greater abundance; and we are better prepared to live with our Heavenly Father. Once we have truly repented, Christ will take away the burden of guilt for our sins."

Pursuing legitimate spiritual growth is far too important for any of us to waste any time trifling with false guilt based on false standards.

As always, God provides us with genuine love and value while the Adversary offers only a shadow and a sham. May we turn unto true light and life.

Ho Ho Ho and a Body on WalMart's Floor

Although it is true that the universe was arranged for human beings, when I see a story like this I have to wonder why, if just for a moment.

I'm still shaking my head.

It's All About Us

Warning: physics ahead. But even if you are not a physicist, this post may interest you because it recounts just a few of the reasons why this universe permits you to exist.

Physicist Tim Folger, writing in the latest edition of Discover magazine, provides some interesting facts about our universe that, in my judgment, support what is known in the physics world as "the anthropic principle", i.e., the notion that instead of being an unfathomably complex series of random events and circumstances, the universe was intelligently designed to support life.

Even the most ardent anti-creationists will admit that the universe's basic properties are "uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist."

A few examples:



• All atoms consist of more elemental particles, namely, protons, neutrons, and electrons. If protons were 0.2 percent more massive, they would be unstable and decay into smaller particles, which means atoms could not exist, which means WE could not exist.

• Atomic nuclei are bound together by the so-called strong force. If that force were slightly more powerful, all the protons in the early universe would have paired off and there would be no hydrogen, which fuels long-lived stars. Water would not exist, nor would any known form of life.

• Stars like the sun produce energy by fusing two hydrogen atoms into a single helium atom. During that reaction, 0.007 percent of the mass of the hydrogen atoms is converted into energy, via Einstein’s famous E = mc2 equation. But if that percentage were, say, 0.006 or 0.008, the universe would be far more hostile to life. The lower number would result in a universe filled only with hydrogen; the higher number would leave a universe with no hydrogen (and therefore no water) and no stars like the sun.

• Earth's orbit around our sun provides a narrow range of temperatures on our planet within which an astounding variety of life forms can exist. Change the average distance between the sun and earth by a very tiny amount, and we are either crispy critters or popsicles.

• The early universe was delicately poised between runaway expansion and terminal collapse. Had the universe contained much more matter, additional gravity would have made it implode. If it contained less, the universe would have expanded too quickly for galaxies to form.

• Had matter in the universe been more evenly distributed, it would not have clumped together to form galaxies. Had matter been clumpier, it would have condensed into black holes.


What are the chances that, in purely random fashion, the universe became so finely balanced in so many different aspects that this thing we call LIFE could exist?

Despite my technical and scientific background, I cannot believe this all happened by chance. One law of physics nobody questions is: the derivative of entropy with respect to time is always positive, i.e., the universe left to itself is naturally increasingly chaotic. The fact that organisms as exquisitely complex as human beings exist at all is compelling evidence of some vastly intelligent force creating myriad instances of sublime order within the vast universal chaos. Thereby, that intelligence relegates the chaos to the background where it belongs, and infuses the ordered beings (us) with supernal, intrinsic value.

We are what matters in this universe.

The Lamest Duck, Indeed

This is a photo of President Bush referred to in an article entitled, "The Lamest Duck", by Joe Klein.

As Klein notes, we tend to be somewhat sympathetic to presidents who are just entering or just leaving the office, but it is hard for me to be so in the case of George Bush. After a long list of foolish and clueless decisions that further bankrupted our country, caused the deaths of thousands of our soldiers and many thousands of innocent civilians, and drove world opinion of the Unites States to record lows, Bush tops off his presidency by basically disappearing when the biggest economic crisis in decades savages us all. That is not exactly my idea of "presidential".

Klein's summary is especially on target, in my opinion, when identifying the root causes for Bush's stultifying government:

"In the end, though, it will not be the creative paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness."

El Coyote Update

This was the scene at the El Coyote Mexican Cafe in Los Angeles shortly after Prop 8 passed. Protesters, angered by the results of the free and fair election, took it upon themselves to try to deny the restaurant's owners and its 89 workers (many of whom are gay) a living because one of the owners exercised her legal right to vote and to contribute a whopping $100 to a political cause.

Well...this is the scene now:


The restaurant, family owned and operated since 1931, is still in business. My son and his friend joined a group for dinner there on Saturday night. They reported that the place was PACKED, the food was delicious, and that there were a number of men sitting at tables silently smiling into each others eyes.

Oh, and for the record, my son's dinner companion is indubitably FEMALE. :)

Now HERE Is Some Justice

Unless you are big like me, you can't truly understand how the following article could make a grown man cry. (Allow me to define "big" for you: my hip bones press against the armrest panels of an airline seat, and the headrest hits me squarely between the shoulder blades. Try doing that for a five-hour a cross country flight.)

---------------------
OTTAWA (Reuters) – Obese people have the right to two seats for the price of one on flights within Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Thursday.

The high court declined to hear an appeal by Canadian airlines of a decision by the Canadian Transportation Agency that people who are "functionally disabled by obesity" deserve to have two seats for one fare.

The airlines had lost an appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal in May and had sought to launch a fresh appeal at the Supreme Court. The court's decision not to hear a new appeal means the one-person-one-fare policy stands.

The appeal had been launched by Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet.
--------------------

You think only the big people are happy? What about all the skinny people who ever had to sit next to them?


This one is definitely a WIN-WIN!

A Bit of Wisdom from Babylon

From Dale Carpenter, a No on 8 supporter, writing at "The Volokh Conspiracy":

"Here's my advice to righteously furious gay-marriage supporters: Stop the focus on the Mormon Church. Stop it now. We just lost a ballot fight in which we were falsely but effectively portrayed as attacking religion. So now some of us attack a religion? People were warned that churches would lose their tax-exempt status, which was untrue. So now we have (frivolous) calls for the Mormon Church to lose its tax-exempt status? It's rather selective indignation, anyway, since lots of demographic groups gave us Prop 8 in different ways — some with money and others with votes. I understand the frustration, but this particular expression of it is wrong and counter-productive."

Obama's Dream Cabinet

Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate.com, has captured my thoughts, hopes and dreams about the dominant personality traits within an Obama administration.

I'm an unabashed elitist when it comes to political power in the Executive Branch, and it's clear that Weisberg is too. I'm beyond tired of having a president who sounds like a ten year-old at every (rare) press conference, and who values personal loyalty above brains, ability, and character.

I am optimistic that Obama has the intellectual firepower and leadership skills to feel comfortable filling his cabinet with very smart people who will not check their reasoned, principled positions at the door.

If Obama starts "rewarding friends and backers, playing congressional politics, seeking diversity, and appeasing industry and interest groups", his stock will go down with me.

Sam Must Be Smiling

If I had to buy and hold the stock of one retailer for the next two years, I'd let it ride on WalMart.

There nothing like watching your 401k get halved to drive you toward a joyous reunion with your inner cheapskate.

Sir Elton Weighs In

Elton John had an interesting comment on California's recent Prop 8 battle. Speaking of his long-time partner, John said:

"We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage."

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.

"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Now, if we can just get Cher to say the same thing, maybe all the fuss could end. :)

Top Mormon Leaders Call for Civility in Public Discourse

Today, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement regarding California Proposition 8 and the election aftermath.

SALT LAKE CITY 14 November 2008 Five months ago, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a letter to members of the Church in California, encouraging them to join the millions of other Californians from many religious denominations, ethnic groups and political persuasions in a broad coalition to defend marriage as it has been defined for millennia.

During the election campaign, both sides of the argument on Proposition 8 had ample opportunities to express their viewpoint. The result was conclusively in favor of traditional marriage. More than 40 states in the United States have now voted to protect traditional marriage, either directly or through their elected representatives.

Today the First Presidency issued this statement about the democratic process:

"Since the people of California voted to reaffirm the sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman on November 4, 2008, places of worship have been targeted by opponents of Proposition 8 with demonstrations and, in some cases, vandalism. People of faith have been intimidated for simply exercising their democratic rights. These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation. The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America.

The Church is keenly aware of the differences of opinion on this difficult and sensitive matter. The reasons for this principled stand in defense of marriage have already been articulated elsewhere. However, some of what we have seen since Californians voted to pass Proposition 8 has been deeply disappointing.

Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues. People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts to force citizens out of public discussion should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere.

We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few that are further polarizing our communities and urge them to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other."

Thanks for Stopping By

Thank you for stopping by my blog.

In the last month readership has grown to 135 people and page views have zoomed by 48%.

Please leave a comment if you have any questions or requests.

Once again, thanks for stopping by.

Gay Vigilantes

You want to know what some one's character is truly like? Do one of two things:

1) Observe them when they think they are utterly alone.
2) Observe them when they are under a ton of stress.

Seems to be a lot of stress in the "gay" community today, because some people are showing their true character. They are angry and they are not gonna take it any more. They're not angry enough to kill anybody (at least not yet), but they are effectively lynching the businesses owned by Yes on 8 donors. This is not a broadcast protest--this is targeted, individual vengeance to take away some one's livelihood. It is a direct, personal attack on people who committed the heinous crime of exercising their constitutional rights to participate legally in the political process. What happened to the "Love, Tolerance, Compassion" mantra of the gay community? Why are prominent gay leaders not condemning these personal, individual attacks?

It doesn't stop there. Some person or persons sent envelopes full of white powder to two temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That is NOT political freedom of speech--THAT IS TERRORISM.

I think it is interesting that The L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center issued a statement almost immediately after the news broke:

"While the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center organized a peaceful demonstration against the involvement of the leadership of the Mormon Church in the deceitful Yes on Prop. 8 campaign, we decry the use or threat of violence. Just as the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community seeks the right to be treated equally under the law, all Americans should have the right to live lives free from fear and violence," the statement said.

Well, well.

"Gay Rights" and "Civil Rights"--Same Thing?

Many opponents of Proposition 8 have characterized the current "gay rights" movement as being virtually identical the the civil rights movement that began in the 60s involving Americans of African heritage. Are they really the same thing? I think this is an important question, because if they are then I've got some serious soul searching to do.

The struggle for African American civil rights sought to bring basic personal protections to people who had never had them before. We're talking about things like being able to drink from a public water fountain, eat lunch at a diner, sit in any seat on a bus, getting an education at a public school, voting, getting a job, even walking down the street without getting firehosed.

Prop 8 had nothing to do with fundamental personal rights like those mentioned above. "Gay" people have long enjoyed the same fundamental personal rights anyone else does. And when it comes to civil rights for "gay" couples, the law (specifically, the California Domestic Partnership Act of 2005) declares that registered same-sex domestic partnerships shall have civil rights that are absolutely equal to those granted heterosexual marriages. And those rights are eminently enforceable in the courts.

So, opposing Prop 8 had nothing to do with obtaining new civil rights. How can you obtain something you already have?

Opposing Prop 8 WAS a demand to society for a new privilege, not a new right. That new privilege was redefining the word "marriage" to include the behavioral choices of "gay" people.

Who decides what the legal meaning of a word that affects our entire society should be? How can you decide such a question fairly? It seems to me the only possible way to do that is by voting. The most fundamental concept of governing in our democratic republic is "the consent of the governed".

A civil right is a vastly different thing than the definition of a word. To me, "gay" rights is almost a misnomer. I am not aware of any civil right I now have under California law that a "gay" person does not also have.

California law says that "domestic partnerships" and "marriages" have identical civil rights. The fact that my "domestic partnership" is legally called a "marriage" does not affect any "gay" couple's civil rights in any way. Nor does it grant me any new or different rights beyond those "gay" couples already have.

In my opinion, equating the Prop 8 fight with the civil rights movement that began in the 60s is a canard. I'll buy the argument that the Prop 8 fight was about respect, but I am not convinced it was ever about rights.

A Religulous Veneer

Just who (or what) is Bill Maher and why all the blogosphere buzz over his movie, "Religulous"?

Many people of faith are up in arms over the movie because of its portrayal of religion as something for the weak minded. On the other hand, secularists, atheists, agnostics and Dawkins/Hitchens fans are rallying to use this new "weapon" Maher has created in the debate over religion.

Even cursory searches turn up all sorts of opinions on Maher. The anti-religion side thinks they have a new lion...until someone makes a plausible case that Maher's arguments are simplistic, even childish, and turns up a 2002 interview in which Maher says he does believe in some kind of God but not in organized religion. On the other side, many religionists are thinking (but not saying aloud) that Maher's "expose" of all religions is valid except for the religion to which they happen to belong.

Both sides may be missing a couple of important points:

1) Maher's tactic in the movie was clear: find the easy, low-hanging targets, ambush them with a camera and microphone, then mock them. Not exactly a scholarly approach, which brings me to my second point.

2) Bill Maher is no more a philosopher than Rush Limbaugh is a politician. Bill Maher is an entertainer with a profit motive who knows how to make money by being controversial.

Maher is a satirist, and that is no crime. I think, as many others do, that there is much in organized religion that is easily mockable (yes, even some aspects of my own religious culture). But no one should treat Maher's work as a serious discussion of the issues. Getting all worked up over "Religulous" is a rather disproportionate response, kind of like putting on a Kevlar vest for a squirt gun fight.

And Bill? Well, Bill is laughing all the way to the bank.

Music Defined

"Play it beautiful, play it beautiful. I don't care if you don't hit all of the notes. If you don't move a person's heart it's not music."
-- Christopher Parkening

100 Gay Legal Scholars Confer

The following reported in TIME magazine:

"In a teleconference last week among more than 100 gay legal scholars and others who support gay marriage, the mood was dour. "This has cast a pall" over what had otherwise been a historic election on Nov. 4, said D'Arcy Kemnitz, executive director of the National Lesbian Gay Law Association. Longtime gay rights advocate Dean Trantalis of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and others on the conference call expressed concern that the gay rights movement had become too focused on marriage, and is now paying the price in other more critical areas. "Marriage was never our issue," Trantalis said. "It was thrust upon us by the other side, and they've done a very good job of beating us up over it."

Legal Challenges to Prop 8

If you want to understand the basics of the current legal challenge to Prop 8's passage, read on.

Article 18 of the California state Constitution provides that the Constitution can be changed either by "amendment" or by "revision". An amendment may be enacted by initiative with a majority vote, as Prop 8 was. A revision must first be passed by two-thirds of the Legislature before being submitted to the voters.

Why two different ways? The revision method is, under case law, reserved for a matter that "substantially alters the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution." Opponents of Prop 8 are arguing the Prop 8 did precisely that.

The court will decide.

The prima facie case can appear quite reasonable to a non-lawyer. But consider this: the court has repeatedly taken a VERY narrow view of the definition of a "revision". Amendment initiatives as dramatic as Prop 13 (limited property tax rates), Prop 140 (imposed legislative term limits), and the initiative that reinstated the death penalty in 1972 all failed to qualify as "revisions" in the eyes of the court. Especially noteworthy is the fact that the 1972 death penalty amendment directly limited the judiciary's power to declare fundamental rights.

There are also ample precedents in other states where the the court has rejected the type of challenge Prop 8 opponents are now presenting. The ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The rejection by the Court of Appeals was unanimous. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).

I am no lawyer, but I do know lawyers. None of them I have asked about this issue think the Prop 8 opponents have much of a chance of winning this legal challenge.

As the saying goes, "The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

Science and Faith

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
-- Galileo Galilei

What About the 18,000?

Indeed, what will happen to the 18,000 same-sex couples who were married during the brief period when it was legal for them to do so?

I suppose a court will ultimately decide what will happen. Some of the salient facts the court will, no doubt, consider are:

1. These people acted in good faith and in compliance with the law that was enforceable at the time of their marriage.

2. Proposition 8 carried no provision for retroactive application.

3. It is extremely rare for a court to apply a new law retroactively unless it contains a specific retroactivity clause.

I believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. If I disagree strongly with a law, I may choose to become involved in trying to change it through legal means. But as long as it is the law, it is the law.

I will support whatever the appropriate court decides, even though I think some of the consequences of allowing those 18,000 marriages to stand would be detrimental to our society.

Prop 8 Protests--The Gift That Keeps on Giving

I have a sincere question: How do the Prop 8 protesters think their actions are going to help their cause?

Unless the protests are nothing more than a tantrum outlet for the negative feelings Prop 8's victory gave them, they must see some point or purpose in them. I'm trying to understand what that point or purpose is.

Is it to send a message that they are deeply hurt, saddened and angry over the election results? Well, I think the rest of the world pretty much had that figured out already. No rocket science there.

Is to send a message that they are not about to stop their fight for same-sex marriage rights? Well, I think the rest of the world pretty much had that figured out already, too. Anyone with a brain, anyway.

Are the protesters trying to gather some more converts to their cause? If so, maybe they should consider how attractive they appear on television and in the newspaper. The scenes in the media are so reminiscent of the 60s...and tend to give the "movement" that same cachet: a bunch of people who march, chant, and scream because they can't figure out an effective way to accomplish their goal. Some photos show protesters who appear to be rabidly wide-eyed and foamy-mouthed, although I imagine few of them actually are. But rabid people make for interesting news photos that sell more newspapers.

Then, consider the bonus public relations points you get for appearing to attack a church. Do you really think the centrist votes you need to convert in the next electoral challenge are going to be sympathetic to that kind of behavior?

How about this blog post on the L.A Times website from Tim B. on November 5: "I live in West Hollywood and was ruffed up by this mob on the way home from work tonight. My car was engulfed, I was shoved, my car hit and the mob rocked my car trying to tip it. I support equal rights for everyone, voted no on prop 8, BUT this kind of behavior does not foster understanding." I wonder if Tim B. will vote with you next time.

The smarter, cooler heads who led the official No on 8 Campaign are right: “We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not stand with us in this fight. We only further divide our state if we attempt to blame people of faith, African American voters, rural communities and others for this loss."

Oh, and one more suggestion. Get a spellchecker for those protest signs.

No on 8 Leaders Speak

As reported in the Los Angeles Times and on the No on Prop 8 official website, four prominent leaders of the No on 8 campaign issued a statement which included the following passage:

“We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not stand with us in this fight. We only further divide our state if we attempt to blame people of faith, African American voters, rural communities and others for this loss."

I can only acknowledge that statement as absolutely true, and hope those flag waving, screaming protesters who attempted to defile a sacred edifice will get this message from their leaders. The protesters' actions, which bear a significant resemblance to a childish temper tantrum, are hurting their own cause.

Blaming the Mormons for Prop 8?

The following facts might turn your head if you blame the Mormon church for the passage of Prop 8 in California:

1. Mormons make up about 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 Mormons out of a total population of approximately 34 million.

2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the "yes" vote. If one estimates that 250,000 Mormons are registered voters (the rest being children). If every single Mormon voter in California votes yes, they made up approximately 4.4% of the Yes vote and 2.2% of the total Proposition 8 vote. PROP 8's MARGIN OF VICTORY WAS OVER 500,000 VOTES. IF EVERY MORMON VOTER HAD STAYED HOME FROM THE POLLS, PROP 8 STILL WOULD HAVE PASSED EASILY.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated not one dime to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right, donated whatever they felt like donating.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million. The No campaign enjoyed a substantial money advantage.

5. African Americans in California overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. Haven't read about any protests at the NAACP offices.

6. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8. Are protesters headed to the MALDEF offices next?

7. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims – all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members. The Knights of Columbus were primary contributors to the Yes campaign. Are the protesters planning to send a delegation to the Vatican to let Pope know how they feel?

8. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have repeatedly asked members to treat others with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.

9. The Mormon church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church as always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it judges to be moral issues.

10. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse.

The fact is, we simply did what Americans do – we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

Senatorial Power Under Obama

Many of my Republican friends are using the word, "fear", to describe their reaction to Obama's victory. It seems many of them fear that a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House will claim a broad mandate and drag the country abruptly to the left.

I'm reading a LOT of smart people in the financial and journalism areas and not seeing much of anyone who believes that will happen. None of the investment house forecasts I've read sees radical tax reform happening quickly, but possibly in a second Obama term. Howard Dean, the DNC Chair, told Chris Matthews he would welcome the placement of Republicans in positions within the Obama administration. (I dearly hope for that.)

But, my GOP friends, consider this: The Democrats did not win a filibuster-smothering 60 seats in the Senate. That means they will have to reach across the isle and persuade SOME Republicans to go along on certain issues. Those Republicans will most likely be moderates, and THEY are the ones who will be in the power chairs when it comes to getting things done in the Senate.

Court Challenges to Proposition 8 Victory

My son drew my attention to the following statement, issued today by the general counsel for Protect Marriage.com. It is worth repeating here:

Statement By Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com
November 05, 2008
Contact: (916) 608-3065
By Andy Pugno

“The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.

This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters’ decision.

The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.

The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.

It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).

The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People’s decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda.”

The Mormon Church Responds to Same-Sex Ballot Issues

A recent anti-Prop 8 television ad (since pulled from Youtube) vilified the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by portraying faux missionaries as home-invasion robbers. A group called "Courage Campaign Issues Committee" created the ad, which can be seen here.

The legitimate No on 8 campaign has not disavowed the ad to date.

You can read the Church's response here.

The Problem With The Political Faithful

As America chooses a new president today, I wonder how many people are voting either for or against a candidate's caricature instead of the real man?

Finally...a Verdict

It's already Election Day in Dixville Notch, and Obama has won that burg. I am so ready for this campaign to be over.

Whoever wins tomorrow will be my President. The slate will be clean and he will have the benefit of the my doubt during the honeymoon. Governing is dramatically different than campaigning, and neither of the candidates is evil incarnate.

Whoever you turn out to be, please govern this country from the center. Surround yourself with smart people from both sides of the aisle and listen to them. Move us past the hyper-partisan era into a time when we don't care which side of the aisle the good ideas come from and we think twice before we act once. Talk to both our friends and enemies alike, without preconditions. Bow to the new reality: we can no longer try to impose our will on other sovereign nations with impunity. Keep that big stick ready in your back pocket in case we are attacked again. Do the minimum necessary to provide for a healthy common infrastructure and defense, but please don't overshoot as you re-regulate the markets. Secure our borders. Re-enshrine the fundamental Constitutional rights that have been abrogated during the last eight years.

And please, when you have a press conference, try to sound like you know what you are talking about. If you really want to thrill me, just pronounce the word, "nuclear" correctly and watch me grin. (I'll smile outright if the word "nuclear" is followed by "power plants we will begin constructing".)