Month: May 2012
The economic consequences of Government spending
Lord Jerry Brown Looks To His Serfs To Work on High Speed Rail
An amazing statement (above) from Jerry brown. He views us as serfs, is he our lord?
- Serfs lived in small communities called manors that were ruled by a local lord or vassal. Most peasants were serfs. They were bound to the manor and could not leave it or marry without the manor lord’s permission. Serfs did all the work on the manor farm: they worked the fields, cared for the livestock, built and maintained the buildings, made the clothing, and cut firewood. Men, women, and children worked side by side. Serfs had small plots of land they could work for themselves; sometimes a serf saved enough money to buy his freedom and became a freeman.
Cost Side:
(WSJ – May 18, 2012) California’s budget deficit has grown by $7 billion in the last four months. Uh oh. The good news in this debacle is that the state’s fiscal woes will make it nearly impossible to complete Governor Jerry Brown’s runaway high-speed rail train. The bad news is that the Governor is going to try anyway.
Transportation experts warn that the 500-mile bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles could cost more than $100 billion, though the Governor pegs the price at a mere $68 billion. The state has $12.3 billion in pocket, $9 billion from the state and $3.3 billion from…
HotAir continues:
This weekend the Wall Street Journal reports that our earlier estimation was in error. The financing isn’t “risky” at all… it’s an unmitigated disaster.
The good news in this debacle is that the state’s fiscal woes will make it nearly impossible to complete Governor Jerry Brown’s runaway high-speed rail train. The bad news is that the Governor is going to try anyway.
Transportation experts warn that the 500-mile bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles could cost more than $100 billion, though the Governor pegs the price at a mere $68 billion. The state has $12.3 billion in pocket, $9 billion from the state and $3.3 billion from the feds, but Mr. Brown hasn’t a clue where he’ll get the rest. Maybe he’s hoping Facebook will buy the train, though he’ll have a hard time convincing Mark Zuckerberg that it’s worth 100 Instagrams.
As the WSJ article goes on to point out, voters were originally sold on putting up $9B in bonds to fund the project on the promise that it would “only” cost $33B in total and that a combination of federal dollars and private investments would make up the rest. But Washington is facing something of a cash crunch itself, in case you hadn’t heard, and no investment firms want to pony up any money without some assurance of revenue down the road. It’s simply not happening.
As HotAir admits:
- ….I remain a fan of rail travel, partly because I hate flying and partly from a sense of nostalgia I suppose. And I’m still hopeful that projects like this may yet come to fruition in places where they make sense. The Northeast corridor from Boston to Washington, DC still looks like it could support a high speed rail project if it were implemented intelligently. But California has neither the money nor the culture to support it….
David Letterman Mocks Romney`s Wealth Despite Being Worth $400 Million
Wow! Disco Is Taking a Hit This Week! Bee Gees Co-Founder Robin Gibb Dies at 62
A Compilation of My Recent Responses and Posts Regarding Same-Sex Marriage from FaceBook
The following are posts and responses to a few different people posting either outright attacks on Christians or putting up graphics that demean Christians from via the other side of the isle. While the below conversation is inherently political and I do take a stance that is conservative (I admit my biased views: I have my own interests and personal beliefs in mind when talking to others, spiritually or politically [Prov 21:2; Matt 15:19]), the below should enlighten both sides how to come at this issue, both with an informed and loving “apologetic” as well as informing (no matter what side of the isle you reside) your political positions with keeping the debate “issue based” and not setting up straw men arguments to tear down nor simply dismissing the other side ad hoc, or, outright as bigots (http://tiny.cc/gwseew).
This first response was after a very harsh response to a Christian on an acquaintances FaceBook, So I decided to chime in:
The question becomes why do many homosexual people and persons who are in committed relationships reject same-sex marriage. Religion has nothing to do with this argument. In fact, the homosexual should accept the Judeo-Christian aspect of what it means to be human. For in naturalism (philosophical materialism — all that exists is matter/energy), nature is much crueler. And since in nature “survival of the fittest” is the only ethic and it is (as Alfred, Lord Tennyson wrote: Red in Tooth and Claw) violently protective of making sure survival is animistic, the Judeo-Christian ethic is the only view that gives men (men used in regards to humankind), all mankind humanity. For instance, lesbian pro-choicer, Tammy Bruce (a favorite author of mine) said the following:
Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic.” [….] …these problems don’t remain personal and private. The drive, especially since this issue is associated with the word “gay rights,” is to make sure your worldview reflects theirs. To counter this effort, we must demand that the medical and psychiatric community take off their PC blinders and treat these people responsibly. If we don’t, the next thing you know, your child will be taking a “tolerance” class explaining how “transexuality” is just another “lifestyle choice”…. After all, it is the only way malignant narcissists will ever feel normal, healthy, and acceptable: by remaking society – children – in their image
(Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values [Roseville:Prima, 2003, 35, 92, 206)
I continue in my chapter (in my book) on this topic:
This ethic that Tammy Bruce speaks of is entrenched in the idea of a Creator, she understands that man-made laws must serve and not defeat natural rights[21] as found in natural law. Black’s Law Dictionary gives a great definition of what Paul was talking about: “A philosophical system of legal and moral principles purportedly deriving from a universalized conception of human nature or divine justice rather than from legislative or judicial action; moral law embodied in principles of right and wrong.”[22]*
I think the elitist thinking here (that now, a liberal majority knows better than every moral teacher and thinker of the past: like Buddha, Jesus, Moses, and the like) is what is telling. It casts this as a religious debate not realizing that the law of biology demands that civil law recognize what nature has already destined.
Another well-respected homosexual sociologist/psychologist from Canada even bullet points the issue for us:
=====QUOTING a post of mine
Paul Nathanson, a sociologist, a scholar, and a homosexual writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves–things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are (source):
✔ Foster the bonding between men and women
✔ Foster the birth and rearing of children
✔ Foster the bonding between men and children
✔ Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
✔ Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm “that limits marriage to unions of men and women.” He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”
Read more: http://
So you see that the issue, which is cast in very combative terms that would make gay people in committed relationship “homophobic,” is a bit deepr and more complicated than mere non-sequiturs, straw-man arguments, ad hominem attacks, and bumper sticker mantras (referring here to a previous statements by Alex Vogel and this post graphic: http://tiny.cc/e8keew, and this one as well: http://tiny.cc/aaleew). This makes what Terry Ray said right-on-the-money.
* See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/
After a couple of remarks that were not dealing with the topic at hand, I continued:
So people can better know what Alex is referring to, my recent post of mine on my site may help: http://tiny.cc/ejoeew
By the way, notice Alex does not typically respond to the topic presented, one of which is that many homosexuals themselves are against same-sex marriage. So not only would the Dalai Lama, The Buddha, Moses, Jesus, pre-Obama “evolution,” Zoroaster, etc be all homophobic and full of H8, but so too the many gay persons who reject it. You can see then how special rights and the liberal mentality corrupts categories and makes sweeping statements in attacking those who disagree with them, rather than working through an important issue such as this.
AND, in fact, a proper understanding of Buddhism does away with any real understanding of “love,” “person-hood,” “compassion,” “rights,” and the like. For those that wish to have a better understanding of Buddhism, may I humbly suggest a chapter in my book on this subject: http://tiny.cc/9xoeew
Also, for those who have the time, here are some audio segments on how liberalism warps common sense and judgement (some are longer than others):
1) Affirming Feelings, Not Truth
http://www.mrctv.org/
2) How Does the Left View the Right?
https://vimeo.com/album/
3) Positions and Policy Based on Feelings
https://vimeo.com/album/
4) Progressive Ideology Warps Judgment
https://vimeo.com/album/
5) Prager Discusses How Progressive Liberalism Shackles Peoples Thoughts and Actions
https://vimeo.com/album/
The above, although time-consuming, will help people like Terry Ray formulate both their understanding of the other side of the isle as well as starting to respond in a more affective manner.
In a recent response/post to a graphic with a Clint Eastwood quote on an acquaintances FaceBook, I said the following:
Unfortunately, like many others, this is what Thomas Sowell calls “stage one” thinking. Emotions based policy making without asking what affect a decision will have on society. The oldest (and most successful) adoption agency in Massachusetts (80-years in the field of placing children with families, Illinois and California are sure to follow) and DC had to shut their doors because of their religious option to prefer heterosexual couples when adopting to homosexual couples, from Universities ceasing to give insurance to their students and staff, to forcing chaplains in the military to marry gay couples. These are the early consequences to stage one thinking.
Another aspect of the above is that in no time in history has any religious or moral thinker (The Buddha, Jesus, Moses, the Dalia Lama, Zoroaster, etc) accepted or endorsed same-sex unions. So what is interesting is that these world religious founders and the many long-term monogamous homosexual couples who are against same-sex marriage (Elton John, Tammy Bruce, Paul Nathanson, and the like) are all — due to the shallow thinking and hyperbole used — homophobic, or sanctimonious, or full of H8 (like here in California).
Again, people are so use to allowing opinion to drive policy that they do not ask serious questions about what the outcome of a policy will be. (For instance, California owes about 500-billion in unpaid and unfunded retirement benefits/promises to just three unions in our state. It sounded good and these unions fought for what they thought was good without asking the next question[s], and they will lose out in the end and not protect those whom they said they cared about because they used “stage one” thinking.)
It is amazing that those who say those who stand against same-sex marriage are extremists when no world religious founder or moral thinker in history supported the idea, when even 50-years ago the idea wouldn’t be even thought of, or that gay couples are included in H8 and homophobia because they stand against the idea. Who are the extremists pushing an idea that has never been proposed in the history of mankind in America?
★ “A liberal society might, then, find it prudent to ignore homosexuality. It might well deem it unwise to peer into private bedrooms. However, this is not the issue before us. Today the demand is that homosexuality be endorsed and promoted with the full power of the law. This would require us to abandon the standard of nature, the one standard that can teach us the difference between freedom and slavery, between right and wrong.”
To repeat, “However, this is not the issue before us. Today the demand is that homosexuality be endorsed and promoted with the full power of the law.” This is the extremist position, and the “sanctimonious” one “Clint.”
In another FaceBook conversation I was responding to a “help wanted” sign at a Christian apologetics FB site I am a member of. One gentleman observes astutely that,
Quick thought: is love the only criteria for marriage? No. In fact some people who love each other deeply are excluded from marriage, and deep love doesn’t do it for them! Who? Brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters. Marriage is about love but it is more than this! It is also ‘described’ by law, not defined! Law describes something that is essentially timeless.…
To which I continued his thinking:
Continuing the thinking, the law of biology and natural law combine to support the reasoning that the government (any government) ~ when acknowledging marriage as between male and female in civil law ~ is not creating law but acknowledging what is already ordained by nature (atheist) or by God (person of faith can use both views). Here is a small portion from my old blog in response to a (at the time) my son’s 9th-grade friend:
===================
…However, there is a “created order,” or, even a natural order (if you do not believe in God). My argument for heterosexual (between a man and a woman) unions is usable both by the atheist (non believer in God) and the theist (a believer in God – in the Judeo-Christian sense). Here is the crux of the matter in regards to “nature’s order:”
❀ “…take gold as an example, it has inherent in its nature intrinsic qualities that make it expensive: good conductor of electricity, rare, never tarnishes, and the like. The male and female have the potential to become a single biological organism, or single organic unit, or principle. Two essentially becoming one. The male and female, then, have inherent to their nature intrinsic qualities that two mated males or two mated females never actualize in their courtship… nor can they ever. The potential stays just that, potential, never being realized….. Think of a being that reproduces, not by mating, but by some act performed by individuals. Imagine that for these same beings, movement and digestion is performed not by individuals, but only by the complementary pairs that unite for this purpose. Would anyone acquainted with such beings have difficulty understanding that in respect to movement and digestion, the organism is a united pair, or an organic unity?”
So you see, the two heterosexual organisms that join in a sexual union cease being two separate organisms for a short time and become one organism capable of reproduction. This is what the state and the church are sealing in a marriage, this intrinsic union. The homosexual couple can never achieve this union, so “natures order” has endowed the heterosexual union with an intrinsic quality that other relationships do not have or could never attain. Both the atheist and theist can argue from this point, because either we were created this way or we evolved this way. Either way, nature has imposed on the sexual union being discussed….
http://
==================
Take note that this thinking (inherent qualities) is fully referenced in my chapter on this topic and comes from Robert P. George (http://www.scribd.com/doc/
The above thinking is why homosexual sociologist (well respected in Canada, his home country) says the following:
=====================
Paul Nathanson, a sociologist, a scholar, and a homosexual writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves–things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are (source):
♚ Foster the bonding between men and women
♚ Foster the birth and rearing of children
♚ Foster the bonding between men and children
♚ Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
♚ Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm ‘that limits marriage to unions of men and women’.” He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.” Read more: http://
By the way, I wish to ad that Christians are not thinking about placing this argument back into the court of the person they are talking to. Paul Nathanson does not believe in the Bible, he is in a committed homosexual relationship, and yet… he argues AGAINST same-sex marriage. When skeptics bring up the Old Testament or Paul in the New Testament, why? We view them as still under the law of sin, not yet set free by Christ’s finished work on the cross. They even admit that they are under the law of determinism. (The idea that in very minute, successive, historical events from the time of the Big-Bang to their leading to our environment and their “existence” and the chemical reactions in their brains reacting to it [environment] “determine” their actions/views. They are still under the law as their school master and not yet free to make moral decisions in Christ, rising above [not by our efforts or work] our naturalistic nature.)
Ask why homosexuals in committed relationships like Elton John, Tammy Bruce, Paul Nathanson are homophobes? Hash out the idea that under their thinking of “special rights” create societal issues that have nothing to do with Leviticus, but our 1st Amendment. This doesn’t have to be a “faith society vs. secular society” battle. Atheists and secularists can use the same ideas in rejection of same-sex marriage. If I were talking to a believer, I may engage more heavily in the hermeneutics of Scripture and how to look at these verses, but most of the time the people we discuss matter like these with reject the Bible wholly. So I would not bring it up or steer the person to how his or her views hurt the half of the less than 3% of homosexuals who will not marry.
Dr. Andrew Corbett Discusses Why Charles Darwin left Christianity ~ Serious Saturday
`Lucky I Didn`t Sucker Punch Him` ~ Will Smith`s Greatest Line
Death By Mineral Gypsum (calcium sulfate)
RIP Donna Summers ~ A Disco Legend Passes
Black & Right h/t:
This was her Last Dance:
Dr. Wafa Sultan exposes Islamic values with Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad
Same-Sex Matters (Race and Gender in Marriage)
(This audio is a FLASHBACK from JUNE 17, 2008) The only reason I know that is because of the reference to this L.A. Times article, “The Right to Love” (Reproduced in full in the appendix)
I wanted to share here some conversation and further thinking on a topic that was discussed vigorously amongst friends while partaking in choice hops this past Halloween weekend. The below is written in conversation style (almost all my posts are like this) for friends. So it will seem personal at times.
A plea for friends who are in relationships… this is meant for continued deeper reflection. Take your time and reflect thoughtfully and if discussed amongst yourselves, discuss civilly. Through all the conversation, know that right now in California civil partnerships hold all the legal equality (taxes, health-care coverage, hospital visits, etc) to marriage. So the push to have “same-sex marriage” isn’t about “equality,” it’s about ideology.
Also keep in mind that I am not in any way under the impression that a simple conversation like this will undue many years of thinking on a matter/subject. (You or Myself.) I would rather you at the least be introduced to a side of an issue that maybe you haven’t heard of before. This introduction to other arguments may be long and tedious. TAKE YOUR TIME (*caps not yelling but said for impact*). Great theories and coming to positions (spiritual and political) on a matter take time and evolve, sometimes over years. Or at least they should be considered with weightiness and not merely adopted from university or parental influence.
I have no idea either what you may have been introduced to (for instance: Howard Zinn, the self admitted Marxist and historian whose historical viewpoint was born from Marx and Engels writings – on other words, his historical philosophy didn’t exist prior to the Communist Manifesto). This view of history tends to be popular at the university campus. In other words, many of our views are rooted in deeper worldviews and the peripheral views we hold may never change until you look a bit deeper into our worldview.
- (What does a worldview entail? Any “coherent worldview must be able to satisfactorily answer four questions: that of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.” Another writer outs it thusly: “A Worldview is how one views or interprets reality. The German word is Weltanschauung, meaning a ‘world and life view,’ or ‘a paradigm.’ It is a framework through which or by which one makes sense of the data of life. A worldview makes a world of difference in one’s view of God, origins, evil, human nature, values, and destiny.” Raising one’s self-consciousness [awareness] about worldviews is an essential part of intellectual maturity.)
In my mind’s eye we are talking about peripheral positions that would be impacted more by a deeper look into how we view reality… something not often looked into by the general populace today (see my first chapter in my book). So again,
- I am more concerned about clarity than agreement in this conversation.
Many positions we hold as fact can be based in fallacious thinking. I will exemplify this by a topic that was brought up the other night, anthropogenic global warming (man caused global warming). History and science come together to disprove this theory. Not only has the “hockey stick” model that gave birth to this giant theory which was popularized by Al Gore [Britain’s courts referenced many lies in his presentation to not show it in public schools] has been torn to shreds science-wise, history shows the complete breakdown of the premise. For instance:
MOVING ON.
I almost wrote on the topic we spoke a bit about the other night back in September and wish I had, but instead I switched gears and wrote on the Left’s support for pedophilia (explicit and implicit) in their support of many groups who promote it – here in the united states and abroad (See: The Left / Islamo-Nazis / Homosexuality / Womens Rights / and Contradictions). I would like us to stay on just this topic if we can work though it.
Before getting to the main topic that we left last night about interracial marriage being illegal on the basis of color and homosexuality being equated to that [i.e., race], I wish to post some of what I said last night for record sake. This comes from a question asked of me by one of my son’s friends. He asked “What is your views on gays? Are they bad? Are they going to hell? Are you born this way?” (Question #3 from Q & A Session – PapaG Style) Most of what I talked about last night can be found in this post for clarity [updated a bit]:
Many homosexuals stand against same-sex marriage. I document some in-depth views by a couple of politically astute gay persons reasons on why they stand against same-sex marriage (so it isn’t homophobia [#1], and [#2] it isn’t about a lack of “rights,” because these homosexual writers believe they are equal now). I also quote a well-known Canadian homosexual psychologist and sociologist on this topic:
These are considerations often not addressed by the Left. But all this is not the main point I want to deal with, which is, race and sexual orientation.
Dennis Prager mentions the power of this argument with one of his few refutations of it:
(In the audio to the right, this first caller should be listened to, below is the visual of the discussion.)
That first reason is why almost all the black civil rights leaders that marched with Martin Luther King Jr. do not support this comparison. For instance,
APPENDIX
Average Household Income:
Homosexuals – $55,430 / African Americans – $12,166
Percentage of College Graduates:
Homosexuals – 60% / African Americans – 5%
Holding Professional Positions:
Homosexuals – 49% / African Americans – 1%
Taken Overseas Vacations:
Homosexuals – 66% / African Americans – 1%
Ever Denied the Right to Vote:
Homosexuals – No / African Americans – Yes
Ever Faced Legal Segregation:
Homosexuals – No / African Americans – Yes
Ever Denied Access to Public Restrooms:
Homosexuals – No / African Americans – Yes
Ever Denied Access to Businesses and Restaurants:
Homosexuals – No / African Americans – Yes
(Wall Street Journal, 7/18/91, B1)
Read more: RPT Homosexuality: Is It Good For Society? For The Individual?
In a New York Times article entitled, “Blacks Rejecting Gay Rights As a Battle Equal to Theirs,” we find some interesting supposed parallels made by the Left taken to task. For instance, Vernetta Adams, A balck 24-year-old woman and history major at the University of the District of Columbia said this, “I can’t go in a closet and hang up my race when it’s convenient…. Gays hid in the closet when they wanted to advance. Now they’re out and demanding rights and yelling ‘discrimination.'” The The Rev. Lou Sheldon intimates the reasons he thinks many in the gay community are making this parallel:
- “The reason gays are making parallels,” Mr. Sheldon said, “is that it may bring empathy from white men like me, who feel a collective sense of guilt about the way blacks have been treated. The fact remains that this is not a civil rights issue but a moral issue.”
This is the point that separates race from gender. That is, homosexuals have not been discriminated against:
Some discussion of the 3/5ths Clause in the Constitution came up as well. Frederick Douglas in his early years thought that this proved a “race bias” embedded in our country. Until that is, he read the Constitution and those writings of the authors of these sections and the debates (history) on such clauses:
Another point I make (in the post Homosexuality: Is it good for society? For the individual?) is that there is an issue before us:
- A liberal society might, then, find it prudent to ignore homosexuality. It might well deem it unwise to peer into private bedrooms. However, this is not the issue before us. Today the demand is that homosexuality be endorsed and promoted with the full power of the law. This would require us to abandon the standard of nature, the one standard that can teach us the difference between freedom and slavery, between right and wrong.
What is the “issue before us?” I will let professor Robert George talk about it further:
While the following may be a bit graduate level, it is worth reading and digesting, as it makes similar points to the above comments by Robert George in the article he wrote, but it looks at the health of society. Like I said, you should take your time, follow through on some of the links, which would be equivalent to a small book being read. The following is taken from the chapter of my book entitled, Roman Epicurean’ism – Natural Law and Homosexuality (this section starts on page 14 if you wish to follow the references):
So there was a progression from Pagan rights for women, which were basically none, to a protection and equalization under a more Christianized system. It is this system that is being undermined in redefining marriage. What is meant by this is that marriage between a man and woman is not an institution created by the state. As philosopher Michael Pakaluk argues, “[it] is an objective reality prior to the state.” If it is merely an institution created by the state, the case used by same-sex advocates (Loving v. Virginia) to equate homosexual marriage to race falls apart:
This “right to love” (which is separate from marriage) is discussed further by Dennis Prager and others. Before ending with some audio, another issue that may be embedded in your mind is that Christianity has enslaved women more than freed them. This misconception – common on the university campus – is another historical misconception. You may see this on pages 12-18 of my chapter entitled Gnostic Feminism – Empowered to Fail. A very important read to understand the protections that came from the Judeo-Christian worldview ultimately afforded to women almost from the conception of the Christian faith and later embedded in Western legal tradition. It is this tradition being undermined and the human rights homosexual persons and women have fought so hard for for centuries. If one rejects this American experiment founded in the rights of their Creator, then one rejects the rights found in this same document. Reverting back to the same positions that treated women and homosexuals in a less than demeaning manner is self-destructive and well, if you will forgive me, juvenile. Juvenile not in a negative way, but needing more input that is outside you normative “sounding board.”
Some important audio. Again, this topic is one I expect you to set aside some time for. Maybe a year even? I will politely keep you on track. The reason for this is that the typical position is reached on the Left some say merely by feeling. I am challenging you to leave the world of feelings and to put your feelings up against reasoned positions. Some of this will be religious in nature, but not in legal terms. What do I mean by this? Theologian Wayne Grudem explains the often mischaracterized cross-pollination of the religious with legal:
In other words, one needs to make some “subject” “object” distinctions herein. Knowing that just because one’s view is religious or secular does not necessarily exclude her of his view from the panoply of legal tradition. A quick note about another small topic that cropped up. If you are unaware of the horrible consequences of polygamy, I have some books and DVD documentaries that you are more than welcome to borrow that can increase your understanding of the psychological and positional destruction of children and women in these cultures:
- Escape, by Carolyn Jessop;
- Shattered Dreams: My Life as a Polygamist Wife, by Irene Spencer;
- Stolen Innocence: My Story of Growing Up in a Polygamouse Sect, Becoming a Teengae Bride, and Breaking Free of Warren Jeffs, by Elissa Wall;
- Banking on Heaven: Polygamy in the Heartland of the American West (DVD);
- Lifting the Veil of Polygamy (DVD);
- Escaping Polygamy: ABC Primetime Investigation (DVD).
APPENDIX ~ L.A. TIMES
Across California today, in mass public weddings and in small, private services, gay and lesbian couples will exchange official vows of undying love and wedlock. With the sanction of the state Supreme Court, these couples stand together as full citizens at last.
Their long odyssey to reach this day serves to remind us why people marry at all, especially in an era of casual relationships. As any married person can attest, marriage is significant precisely because it is difficult. True, it confers certain public protections, but even more, it requires personal sacrifices. If mutual affection and appreciation were enough to sustain relationships across the years, there would be no need for solemn vows of fidelity. Those vows protect many a marriage through many a rough patch; when two people agree to enter into such a union, it by rights should carry the name and honor of marriage, whether it’s between people of opposite sex or between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
Opponents of same-sex marriage often deplore this expansion of the meaning of marriage because they view it as threatening to traditional unions. As they use this day as a rallying point for a proposed amendment to the state Constitution to ban such marriages, it’s time to ask them directly: How does marriage of one type threaten others? Why do many heterosexuals feel that the beauty of their own marriage vows is in no way changed by today’s weddings, while others feel theirs have somehow been diminished?
Perhaps the next few months will ease these fears, as same-sex couples begin their married lives together. Those couples will settle into communities without disorder or threat; they will bring legal protection to their bonds of love. Those bonds can only be good for society — children gain from being raised by married parents, and communities are stronger when residents are legally committed to one another. As more and more Californians marry, society will grow stronger, not weaker.
That’s no doubt why opponents sought a stay of the court’s ruling until after the election. They know that as same-sex marriages become commonplace, the fears about them will fade, and eventually we will wonder what all the fuss was about. In the meantime, opponents will resort to hyperbole and fear. Take this missive last week from the Alliance for Marriage, issued in response to the announcement that the state of New York would recognize the unions performed in California:
“The governor of New York state will declare hundreds of years of marriage law in New York to be null and void. … The governor of New York state will force California-style ‘gay marriage’ on all the families and children of his own state.”
It’s a fairly reliable indicator of a bad argument when its proponent is forced to overstate the case in order to make it. The above surely qualifies. Same-sex couples are not upending the institution of marriage; nor are their supporters. Rather, they are engaged in a profoundly conservative act: They ask not to abolish marriage but to uphold it.
Some religious organizations won’t perform these marriages or recognize these unions — that’s their constitutional right. But the government, which has obligations of equity, may not engage in the discrimination that religions are allowed. As long as it bestows the privileges of marriage on some couples, it must bestow them on all.
In California, the initiative process allows voters to amend the state Constitution directly, and unfortunately, a measure on the November ballot will give them the chance. The question won’t be whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong — that’s a matter of personal conviction — but whether those who believe it is wrong should have the power to deny marriage to those who seek its protections.
Put another way: Many Californians undoubtedly object to unwed couples who have and raise children together, but no constitutional amendment prevents that, whatever the moral calculus.
To those who insist that an unevolving morality undergirds our state and federal constitutions, we remind them that not so long ago, many Americans believed with passionate conviction that it was a sin, a threat to families and a violation of the law for people of different races to marry.
The 1959 ruling of a Virginia state court judge to deny this right to a black woman and a white man aptly summarized the fervor with which opponents of miscegenation drew on tradition and religion to support their views:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents,” trial judge Leon Bazile wrote. “And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that ruling in 1967; on that happy day, 16 states were forced to abandon their laws banning interracial marriage. Today, interracial couples go about their lives without legal threat; some no doubt still feel the sting of disapproval. But those who would look askance on those lawfully wedded couples do so without the state to reinforce their bigotry. Our courts, certainly our supreme courts, exist not to assess God’s will but to enforce the precepts of our constitutions, including the insistence that all Americans — black or white, male or female, straight or gay — are entitled to equal protection and the due process of our laws.
The California Supreme Court affirmed that principle last month and delivered the eloquent basis for today’s ceremonies. As the state’s voters watch the celebrations in the coming months, they should enjoy the sight of fellow citizens availing themselves of a public institution, that of marriage. These celebrations allow us to share in the newlyweds’ happiness, to join in acknowledging a milestone of joy and lifelong commitment. And they prompt at least one more question for those who disapprove: How can the state’s blessing on these acts of love in any way diminish us?