Singular Saints

The daily news is full of commentary and observations about the current financial crisis.  Today’s hot button is the proposal to give new (first time?) homebuyers a break by offering them loans at 4.5% interest.  That’s not a bad place to start, but it doesn’t go far enough IMHO.  The problem is that it doesn’t really solve the real problem, which is that with $10.5 Trillion in mortgage debt, assuming 4.5 percent interest and a term of 30 years the interest alone totals 30 trillion dollars.  That’s got to come from somewhere and the where is *you* working for the next 30 years to pay off the principle and twice that in interest.

It amazes me to hear people talk about “the government” giving money to business to help them survive. Where do people think that money is coming from when the National Debt is already 10.6 Trillion dollars? It’s another loan ie; more debt.  A more effective solution would be to cut interest rates to zero and let *everyone* refinance for a limited time, say, 7 years.  That way we all don’t end up paying three times more for our houses than they are actually worth. Once you’ve done that, the payments can be reduced to a reasonable level. The result; *everyone* gets out of debt sooner.  This would dramatically change banks’ business model for a while, but it lets everyone openly share the burden - which we’re all going to have to do anyway.  It beats the alternative; bankruptsy.

While we’re considering the dust kicked up over the LDS Church’s involvement in the GBLT rights issue, here’s another thing to be aware of; It’s already a law that the Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.  This is contained in Public Law 104-199 which you can view here. The Wikipedia article is available here. The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 (85%) in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 (83%) in the House of Representatives and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

So, why aren’t the protesters encircling the Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument or White House? Maybe I shouldn’t give them any new ideas…

The news outlets are carrying a story that the California’s Fair Political Practices Commission says it will investigate allegations that the Mormon church failed to report non-monetary contributions to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.   In an effort to get the facts straight, here are a few relevant points:

The California Fair Political Practices Commission administers the Political Reform Act.

The Political Reform Act requires government officials to file “Statements of Economic Interest” in order to disclose possible financial conflicts of interest.  The main point of the act is that a public official may not take any part in a governmental decision in which the official has a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The act requires officials to report investments and ownership interests in business entities, real property, sources of income and gifts. The Political Reform Act applies only to financial conflicts of interest of public officials, It does NOT apply to other types of conflicts or biases. It was written to give voters in California some sense of comfort that their elected officials were not influencing legislation that would personally benefit them. 

How Californians Against Hate is going to torque this law around to pertain to volunteer efforts by members of the LDS Church, or even active involvement by church officials, is a hard for me to understand, but I suppose where there’s a willing attorney, there a way. On their web site the Knights of Columbus, New Haven, CT is listed as the top donor at $1,425,000. (The LDS Church doesn’t even make the expanded list.)

If you’d like to know what the California State Attorney General has to say about the purpose, application and scope of The Political Reform Act click here.

I recently started an e-mail conversation with an acquaintance who is actively involved in both the LDS church and the GLBT rights movement.  His comments and observations were heartfelt and I wanted to give them some air here, along with my thoughts on the matter.  There were two specific ideas he presented that I feel are key to his position.  The first was that since God doesn’t make mistakes and God made him gay, all he wants is to honor that.  The second was that nowhere in the scriptures did Jesus speak against homosexuality.  I’ll address the second point today and the first later.

In Matthew 19; 3-12, the Pharisees asked Jesus if it was lawful for a a man to “put away his wife for every cause“.  His answer began with: “Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female…” (ref. Gen 1:27) Jesus then continued; “for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife”and they twain shall be one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together shall no man put asunder.” These statements are clearly about divorce and marriage.

Moses allowed divorce in cases of fornication.  But that was “for the hardness of their hearts”.  Jesus elaborated about marital fidelity in Matthew 5:27-28 saying: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

The subject was also addressed in Matthew 22:23 - 33, where the Sadducees posed a question about the duty of man a to marry and father offspring by the childless widow of his dead brother. (Deuteronomy 25:5) They posed a case where seven brothers marry the same woman, and all die childless.  Jesus replied: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, not the power of God.”  He finished by saying that in the resurrection these brothers and the woman will all be unmarried.  The multitude hear this and are “astonished” at Jesus’ doctrine.

By way of background; The first thing God did after making man and woman in his own image, male and female, was to bless them and tell them to “Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it…” (JPS Genesis 1:28)

From these verses, it seems to me that the Biblical position is that God made men and women to marry, have children and be faithful to each other.  Jesus said it in Matthew, Elohim said it in Genesis.  Like Proposition 8, these scriptures have to do with the nature of the marriage relationship, not homosexuality. (Proposition 8 was about the definition of marriage, not homosexuality, per se.)

In a way my friend is correct, Jesus didn’t specifically say that homosexuality is a sin.  However he clearly addressed the purpose and nature of marriage and anyone who wants to use the scriptures as a basis of argument, should probably consider that.

I came across a YouTube video this morning which I thought was very balanced in it’s position on Proposition 8.   Being of a curious nature, I decided to check on the reference to California Family Code Section 297.5. I had heard that the rights of same sex couples were already protected and was interested to see if this was true. I’m not an attorney, so I can’t offer an informed opinion as to the interpretation of the statute. Both the video and the text of the California Family Code were worth a look, IMHO.

This issue reminds me of an interaction that’s described in Matthew 22 when the Saducees asked Jesus which of seven brothers who’d “had” a woman would be married to her in the resurrection - which they did not believe in.  Jesus replied:  “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” The reference is Deuteronomy 25; 5 & 6:

“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.”

The Saducees missed it on a number of points, the first being in the details of the law, the second being the reality of the resurrection and the last being the sealing power of God.

Last night the Barbara Walters Special featured Thomas Tracy, who achieved notariety for supposedly being the first man to have a baby.  Thruout the interview, Ms. Walters referred to Thomas as a man, although Tracy obviously has a uterus.  During the program it was also divulged that the Beaties are execting again and there are a few dozen other transgendered individuals who have successfully delivered in the last 30 years.

Without resorting to any scriptural authority, I’d simply like to point out that everything Thomas Tracy Beatie did to achieve this was literally “man made”. (S)he was born female. (S)he competed in the Miss Teen Hawaii USA beauty contest 20 years ago.  (S)he began a lesbian relationship when (s)he was 24, and in 2002 had “sex reassignment surgery” including breast removal. When (s)he became pregnant, the donor sperm was bought on eBay.

I don’t question Thomas Tracy’s right to do these things.  If a man wants to have himself castrated or a woman wants to get a hysterectomy that’s also their choice.  If a woman wants to dress like a man or a man wants to dress like a woman and they can find clothes that fit they can certainly do so.  HOWEVER I strongly object to lying about who or what they are. If we looked at Thomas Tracy’s genes I’m fairly sure she’d lack the typical male markers.  In fact, the Y chromosome is a very reliable predictor of gender, so much so it is regularly used in forensics.

Like Proposition 8, the problem here is honesty.  Tracy may have had a miserable home life and very unhappy parents. (Her mother committed suicide.)  Tracy may have hated what was expected of her as a girl. She’s gone to a lot of effort to appear to be a man BUT genetically she is a woman.  What she and others like her are doing is fraud. There is no amount of polite pandering by the press or Barbara Walters that can change that fact.

The news tonight featured a story about the protests that are scheduled for downtown Salt Lake tomorrow, for and against “equality in marriage”.  Maybe I’m just getting a bit dense in my old age, but it seems to me that these folks are missing some very basic stuff about interpersonal relationships.  As a rule we put them into three broad categories: friendships which are freely chosen associations, family which is based on a biological connection and commitment, and romantic which are based on physical and emotional intimacy.  Over the years we’ve given names to variations on these themes;  Roommates share our rooms but not our beds.  Fornicators share sex with other singles outside of marriage. Adulterers share sex with someone they aren’t married to.  In addition to that, the gender of each participant has an effect. We have brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers. Marriage has been defined as being between adults of different sexes.  Man + woman + sex = marriage. (or fornication or adultery depending on the circumstances)  Similarly, man + woman + sex => children. Children need parents to love and protect them and teach them what they need to know about life.  Parents + children = family.  Parents without children = couple.  Is this really all that hard to understand?

My formal training is in invention and creativity, so I’ve been taught how to think outside the box and draw outside the lines.  Occasionally this can cause some confusion and stress, particularly when I find myself in a position that runs counter to a prevailing trend.  In fields that have a strong basis in objective fact, this usually just presents an opportunity to teach or learn something which I didn’t know, but there are areas where demonstrable facts are difficult to determine.  This is when faith and trust often seem to play a major role in getting to a consensus. Folks seem to communicate better when they have reasons to trust each other.

As people of faith we can find ourselves in a position where our beliefs - those things which we think are true but which have not been objectively proven - put us at odds with some or all of the rest of the group. If that group also values unity and co-operation, having a belief that seems to run counter to the trend can be a huge test of faith.  I think California Proposition 8 is a good example of this, but it also happens at work and at home.  At times it can be difficult to get a consensus without forcing others to conform to the prevailing opinion - and exercising unrighteous dominion.  

I think the admonisments of Paul are particularly appropriate; “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” “See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves and to all men.”

We believe and teach that agency is an inviolate principle, yet there are times when we seem to be willing to force our views on others, because we think - or even know - that we are right, in spite of having been specifically taught not to do so. (D&C 121:41-46) This can be very challenging for everyone as the unaddressed fears and concerns of even one individual can hold up the progress of others.

If we know the truth, our task is to teach it with persuasion and patience, gently, meekly and in a spirit of love. (D&C 121:41)  We should tread lightly, particularly when our views contrast sharply with other’s.

Of all people, we should be the best prepared to know and teach the real truth.  The breadth and scope of our experience and knowledge is vast.  Knowing the truth, we should not fear, but act with firmness and consistency.  We should also champion the cause of truth whatever its source. We should also be strict in our adherence to true principles and facts.  ”And truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were and as they are to come and whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.”

News today is that while hundreds circle LDS Temples in protest, legal challenges to Proposition 8 are already in process.  Below is a comment from one of the news sites.   I’m not exactly sure who’s manipulating who here. The basic idea seems to be to threaten churches that take a stand on “politial” issues and if that doesn’t work, alter the electoral process to require something other than a simple majority.  Perhaps real the lesson is;  When you aren’t winning the game on your merits, change the rules, or at least the meaning of the words in the rules…

I say again; Marriage Already has a Meaning.

(Boldface emphasis are mine.)

sfglamazon 11/6/2008 12:36:09 PM The good news is that the 61% margin of 8 years ago has been whittled to 52%, helped greatly by the *lies* the Yes-on-8 people successfully spread. Two positive things could come out of this: (1) write and call your federal legislators and demand they introduce and support a bill to rewrite the tax code to repeal the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that get politically involved. (2) write and call your California legislators and demand they fix the ballot initiative process. How many times have we have to vote “NO” of parental notification for abortions? How much does that cost us? It’s too easy for the ballot process to be abused. Tell Sacramento to correct the system so that extremists *and* corporate interests (i.e. Prop 10) can no longer easily manipulate us.

I noticed this morning that Apple Computer has come out againt Proposition 8 on it’s web page, stating: “…we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.”

This raised a question for me; Exactly what are our “fundamental rights”? The Wikipedia article on Fundamental Rights states:

In American Constitutional Law, fundamental rights have special significance under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Via the due process and equal protection clauses of that amendment, the Supreme Court has held that some rights are so fundamental, that any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose, and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.  It states further: “…the Supreme Court has legally recognized some fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including:

• the right to privacy
• the right to marriage
• the right to procreation
• the right to interstate travel

Any restrictions on these rights on the basis of race or religion are evaluated with strict scrutiny. If they are denied to everyone, it is an issue of substantive due process. If they are denied to some individuals but not others, it is also an issue of equal protection.”

So, under the U.S. Constitution, marriage is considered a fundamental right, and a person cannot be denied marriage on the basis of race or religion and all are due equal protection of that right.

When this was last argued before the California Supreme Court, the key points came down to the definition of marriage and family.  Justice Carlos R. Moreno identified the central question when he asked;  “Doesn’t this just boil down to the use of the m-word — marriage?”

Folks; Marriage already has a meaning.