Marriage, Prop 8, and the 14th Amendment

The Mormon Church came under attack for their involvement and support of Proposition 8 in the state of California. Prop. 8 was constructed as defining legal marriage between a man and a woman; decidedly a stance against gay marriage. Ironically, the Mormon Church took this stance in defense of marriage between one man and one woman – an issue with other implications historically. If the constitution were fully adhered to, no laws governing marriage would be in place unless a marriage occurred civilly, or outside of a religious ceremony. One could argue that Mormon’s were simply acting, with respect to Proposition 8, in defense of or in “honoring and sustaining the law.” Others say that separation of church and state requires the church to remain silent on the issue.

Under the 14th amendment to the constitution, otherwise known as the equal protection clause, is stated, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” A reading of the first portion of that amendment gives credence to the argument that gays should not be prohibited from marrying. Accordingly then, the Mormon’s should not have been prohibited from practicing polygamy either. However, the amendment must be interpreted in its entirety.

The phrase “without due process of law” allows for the voting process to take place, for a proposition like prop. 8 to be constitutionally valid. Additionally, equal protection does not mean equal rights or unlimited rights. For a society to have truly embraced all constitutional rights, including the 1st and the 14th, the government must be out of defining or restricting marriage entirely. That would mean the abolishment of marriage tax breaks, but would allow people of all persuasions to operate in a valid religious context to marry each other.

Understanding that religious freedom was one of the foundational principles that inspired independence from Great Brittan, the very first right in the Constitutional Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” This would imply that government would stay out of the operation of a religion, it does not say that religion is to not have a place or opinion on government operation. Many have assumed and interpreted the phrase “separation of church and state” as a practical way of summing the effective way this right is legally applied - I think that phrase is misleading.

Because many religions consider the matter of homosexuality a moral issue, as well as marriage, due to the fact that the government is now imposed on marriage, there is no real way to achieve separation of the two sides.

An individual cannot embrace a core set of moral and religious beliefs and separate those in public office without offense to those beliefs. It is my theory that the 1st amendment to the constitution was designed simply to not establish a national religion or theocratic form of government – not that religion has no place in society or in governance. The balance is achieved when we as citizens assume and respect the idea that individuals can come from a religious and inherently moral paradigm, and that those ideas, like those of non-religious individuals, can differ. To sever church and state completely is to divide an individual in their loyalties. One cannot place country over God without offending God. Conversely, one cannot place God over country without offending country. Some even see dedication to God over country as a sign of terrorism or treason.

Obama the Hawaiian

So, as Barack Obama is in Hawaii, the new Democratic Governor is seeking a way to help dispel and rumors about Obama's citizenship and birth in that state. What I can't seem to understand is, who is still talking about this? Does Obama need another problem to surface?

In this article on the subject, the law about Hawaii states that they do not release certified birth information unless the information is being requested by someone of "substantial interest." I think that ALL American's would qualify with substantial interest in this case. So, lets see it.... this should either put the issue to rest, or it will be the source of a potential treason case against an elected president. Either way, the timing of this action is strange is it not?

Loosing freedom to protect freedom

The Patriot Act is one of the token issues that many can retreat to when discussing acts of the government where people lose freedoms in the name of protecting freedom. I have fought with this issue in many different ways. Recently, the TSA and all the security procedures at airports (possibly malls, and grocery stores too) seem to be one of those issues that go to question the value of freedom.

Yesterday I watched the new Disney movie "Tangled." To my surprise, the movie was one of the most anti-socialist movies I think Disney has ever produced. Most of their movies tend to preach a different message. The story of Rapunzel as told in this case speaks to the value of keeping an individual locked in a tower in an effort to "protect" them from the evils of the world. In reality the "Mother Gothel" character of "Tangled" seems to represent a corrupt and selfish governing symbol that preaches one thing but essentially represses Rapunzel for their own purposes.

Then I think about the new Food Safety act that congress passed last sunday night that seemed to be designed to promote food safety, but is just another step towards a socialized food source where the government decides who can eat what. Let's face it, the government can not make food any safer than any one else can. People can take perfectly safe ingredients and not cook them right. What is the government going to do, require everyone one to have a food license in their own homes? (I know.... shhhhh, they just might do that, don't give them any ideas).

At what point do we realize that we cannot protect freedom by decreasing freedom?

President Uchtdorf's Christmas Message

So far our blog has been short on Christmas talk this year. I figure that it would good to be exposed to a good, simple Chriastmas message. What better than President Uchtdorf's First Presidency Message.

Enjoy, and if we don't write again to talk about tax "breaks", government controlled food supply, or the most destructive lame duck session of congress in the history of this nation, till after Christmas - Merry Christmas everyone in blog world.

One night a grandfather was reading a story to his four-year-old granddaughter when she looked up and said, “Grandpa, look at the stars!” The older man smiled kindly and said, “We’re indoors, honey. There are no stars here.” But the child insisted, “You have stars in your room! Look!”

The grandfather looked up and, to his surprise, noticed that the ceiling was peppered with a metallic glitter. It was invisible most of the time, but when the light struck the glitter a certain way, it did indeed look like a field of stars. It took the eyes of a child to see them, but there they were. And from that moment on, when the grandfather walked into this room and looked up, he could see what he had not been able to see before.

We are entering another wonderful Christmas season filled with music and lights, parties and presents. But of all people, we as members of the church that bears the Savior’s name need to look beyond the façade of the season and see the sublime truth and beauty of this time of year.

I wonder how many in Bethlehem knew that right there, close to them, the Savior had been born? The Son of God, the long-awaited and promised Messiah—He was in their midst!

Do you remember what the angel told the shepherds? “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” And they said to themselves, “Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass” (Luke 2:11, 15).

Like the shepherds of old, we need to say in our hearts, “Let us see this thing which is come to pass.” We need to desire it in our hearts. Let us see the Holy One of Israel in the manger, in the temple, on the mount, and on the cross. Like the shepherds, let us glorify and praise God for these tidings of great joy!

Sometimes the most difficult things to see are those that have been right in front of us all along. Like the grandfather who failed to see the stars on the ceiling, we sometimes cannot see that which is in plain sight.

We who have heard the glorious message of the coming of the Son of God, we who have taken upon us His name and have covenanted to walk in His path as His disciples—we must not fail to open our hearts and minds and truly see Him.

The Christmas season is wonderful in many ways. It is a season of charitable acts of kindness and brotherly love. It is a season of being more reflective about our own lives and about the many blessings that are ours. It is a season of forgiving and being forgiven. It is a season to enjoy the music and lights, parties and presents. But the glitter of the season should never dim our sight and prevent us from truly seeing the Prince of Peace in His majesty.

Let us all make this year’s Christmas season a time of rejoicing and celebration, a time when we acknowledge the miracle that our Almighty God sent His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to redeem the world!

No Tax Breaks, No More Obama?

As part of Obama's efforts to pass the tax breaks, he told Democrats that if this bill doesn't pass, he could lose being Presdient, or in other words, he won't be re-elected in 2012. That is the first reason I have heard to not pass the tax breaks :)

Obama used this tactic before with the Health Care bill. At some point, this becomes the boy who cried wolf. In one way, he is loosing his presidency because of the health care passage. So how are representatives supposed to react to this pseudo-threat?

Is the tax thing a deal breaker for Obama 2012? Or is this a deal breaker for the democrats supporting Obama in 2012?

Sour Grapes for the Dem's

During the time when Barack Obama fought through his health care reform bill, it seemed that a great deal of effort for transparency and bi-partisan compromise became a forgotten promise. Republicans, and the American people felt like they were not included in the process of changing very significant parts of their lives.

Now, with the shift in congressional power to the Republicans, Obama has sought to extend a hand to the new congress, and pass a tax bill, that while it accomplishes the goals of the democrats to extend tax cuts to the lower and middle classes, it evenly shares tax benefits to all American's and does not seek to punish anyone (except those who inherit dead people money - another article for another time).

It would seem that Democrats are unhappy as they feel that their side was not met with the president whom they sold their souls to on the health care bill, seem to jump to the other side of the isle on this one. Is this just sour grapes? Tit for tat? In other words, was it okay for the Dems to treat Republicans this way for health care, and now they are now enjoying a taste of their own medicine? For a group of people who claim to want health care for all, freedoms for all, marriage for all, abortion for all, it does seem to seem congruent to not extend tax cuts for all.

Are the checks and balances, really balanced?

A Virginia federal judge recently over turned the portion Obama's health care reform bill siting that the provision forcing American's to buy health insurance or be fined is unconstitutional. Personally, I agree with the judge but understand the desire for health care reform in this country. However, that is an article for another time. In this case, the legal system and the political system are working as planned. One is keeping the other in check.

However, a judge in California over turned the voter approved Prop. 8 law that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in that state. I ask, was the system of checks and balances supposed to be a check on and within the government itself ONLY, or is this check of the judicial branch supposed to be a check on the American people as well? Have the judges taken too much power unto themselves?

It seems to me that the Supreme Court, while human and prone to preferences and opinion as opposed to impartiality, is at least more than one judge. There is a deliberation's process and a practical group of high minded individuals (hopefully) render a decision. In both of the cases mentioned above, it is one judge, one opinion, that seems to be able to trump the opinion of the whole state, or even the nation in some cases.

Is there a need for change? My suggestion would be that any case where a voter approved law or proposition is voted in, or if the legislature passes a law, that the law be auto-reviewed for constitutionality by a panel of judges in either the state supreme court, or by a panel of federal appeal judges - NOT JUST ONE - if the vote is less than 60% in favor of passage (by legislative or voter approved laws). Where the vote is above 60%, legal action can be taken by individual parties but should also be required to meet a higher standard of proof as I don't believe that the judicial check and balance was meant to be in opposition to the majority vote. I could be wrong, but it seems that the voice of the people should be greater than the voice of one "activist" judge.

The value of WikiLeaks

Some have chosen to attack the efforts of the website WikiLeaks for its release to the world of sensitive and powerful information injuring the national security of the United States. Some have defended the site's effort to promote transparency and greater accountability for the actions of the federal government. The site has declared their intention to bring down corporations and release non-public documents to the world as well.

Recently, the founder of WikiLeaks was arrested for sexually based charges in Sweden. The web site has gone through extensive efforts to ensure that the world knows all of the bad things the United States has done. Make no mistake about it, the goal of this website and its founder are to cause harm or injury to those who become the target of their "leaks." This site is not going to surrender positive information affirming the charitable works of a company, or some of the efforts that are made to keep sexual harassment in the workplace to a minimum. While some might argue that this is either because this information is already public, or that companies rarely make a secret of their good works, my point is why spend all this time focusing on the destruction of the world around us when there are so many opportunities, and a greater need to build rather than destroy?

While I do believe that government transparency is something that is a long way from where it should be, releasing information that places our troops in further harms way, or that injures the diplomatic position of the United States in the world today will have a counter effect to transparency. The acts of this website will fuel the fire of terrorism, increase hostility towards our country, and will give internal justification to a White House/Congress that is already considering (if not already passed) legislation effecting the neutrality of the internet. WikiLeaks will turn their actions into a vehicle for the government to control the information and in turn limit more information to the public.

While I certainly don't endorse secret combinations, is there a need for the worlds largest tattle tale? Is there value in a website like WikiLeaks? Perhaps, but it should not cost the national security of our country to realize that value. There is a reason certain documents should be held private, and certain aspects of our personal lives that do not deserve to become public knowledge - the same is true of some government operations. It is our right to privacy, opinion, and religion that is to be protected, as well as the right of our government to protect its interests and the interests of its citizens. An assault on the basic privacy laws of this nation is an assault on one this nations most core values. One could argue that the actions of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to be an act of terrorism, as his actions and the actions of his website have aided and abetted our enemies. Where the rules of engagement have been violated by the United States, there is a due process of law that WikiLeaks feels does not apply. Why would two wrongs make a right? Their superiority to the laws of civilized nations will result in the opposite effect they intend and will see them possibly tried as an enemy combatant of the United States.

With his own arrest and sure trial, it will appear that Julian Assange will have his life opened to the world and all his past indiscretions made public. Irony somehow will rule the day once more.

The value of history

Quote after quote speaks to the value of history as it may affect our futures. To deny history is to deny the potential of our future. Yet, history has shown that life is cyclical. Mistakes are often repeated followed by reform and success only to fall again. Outside of technology, have we as a human race progressed from where people have been in the past? If so, in what ways?

History shows success, as well as failures. When successes are repeated for similar reasons, it is rational to think that those principles will work in any age. The same can be said for repeated failures. From time to time a new idea comes along that seems to have no historical standard.

Governmentally speaking, what was the first democracy, what was the first monarchy, what was the first socialist/communist country - and why did they all fail? When the next form of that government came along and failed, why was that so?

From the limited history I know, one of the reasons all governments seem to fail are when government becomes too big or oppressive. If the people place more on the government than government is designed to do, or the government takes on more than it is designed to, it breaks and fails. Historically, the happy medium is not a medium at all. It is decidedly limited.

History shows that citizenship greed is another element of failure; but more societal greed as opposed to economic. When people expect too much from society or feel that society owes them, the environment of that society shifts. Citizens demand more from others without anything equal being given in return. In this scenario, citizens shift to feeding their selfishness to the role of government - the facilitator public means. Government is seen as the way for society to provide for each citizen what they demand instead of what is earned. As a result, government takes on a role larger than it was intended, and it fails.

History has shown this to be so. This history only has value if we as a people chose to remember and apply these lessons to the societies in which we function.