Nate in Salt Lake City

A Mess of Pottage

2011-01-05T23:18:00.003-07:00

Let me get two points out of the way off the bat:

I think that Proposition 8 should be invalidated.
I am not confident that there are five votes on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

Because of both of these points, you would think that I would be rooting for the argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that the proponents of Proposition 8 have no standing to appeal the decision. After all, deciding that the proponents have no standing to appeal kills Prop 8 without getting into the sticky Constitutional questions. Judge Walker’s ruling would not be binding on future cases, but it would give an extra 12% of Americans the right to marry a person of their choosing, and it would allow the issue to remain undecided until we have a less hostile Supreme Court on the bench. While all of this is true, I believe that the proponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to appeal Judge Walker’s decision in Perry.

On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court whether

the official proponents of an initiative measure possess . . . the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.¹

This comes as no big surprise, as the court strongly hinted that they would do that in oral argument last month. The doctrine of standing, is based on the following language in Article III, of the Constitution: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . . .” The Supreme Court has decided that the term cases in the previous sentence restricts federal courts to deciding only those matters brought by a party who has an actual and particularized injury that could be redressed by the court. Therefore, not just anyone can sue to challenge the constitutionality of a law that they don’t like; they have to be directly affected by the law before they can bring an action. Likewise, only a party that was directly affected by the judgment can appeal that judgment.

By this standard, I think it is obvious that the proponents just don’t have an interest in enforcement of Proposition 8 that is any different than that of any random person—stopping enforcement of Proposition 8 will not cause the proponents any particular injury or impose any obligations upon them. If the “injury-in-fact” test were the proponents’ only grounds supporting standing, I would have no problem with Perry being decided on those grounds.

However, the proponents have a better argument. It is uncontested that the government has a particularized interest in defending the constitutionality of its laws. Under traditional separation of powers doctrine, it is the responsibility of the executive branch to defend the laws, and consequently, it has standing. But what happens when the executive disagrees with the law it is being asked to defend? Allowing the executive to simply refuse to defend a law that was duly passed by the legislative branch raises serious concerns with separation of powers—the executive would be able to veto legislation by inaction, bypassing the process outlined in the Constitution. In order to counteract this problem, most courts have allowed the legislature to represent the state’s interest in defending the constitutionality of laws when the executive refused to do so through a doctrine called legislative standing.

But what happens when the legislature did not pass the law in question? Twenty-four states currently allow laws to be passed by means of citizens’ initiatives. This process avoids the legislature completely, allowing the people of the state to approve the measure by direct vote. In this situation, no branch of government would have a personal stake in defending the law. While the people of the state voted for the initiative, “the people” is not an entity that can sue or be sued, and individual persons cannot claim to represent the people of the state. Without some other entity to defend the law, the constitutional order is subverted.

The adversarial system only works if there are passionate and strong advocates on both sides of the issue. To ensure the development of good constitutional doctrine, competing points of view must be presented so that a true weighing can take place. While we might be tempted to ignore that principle to gain a favorable outcome in a particular case, such a position would only lead to more problems down the road. Every law should be defended by someone who really believes in it—otherwise it perverts constitutional precedents and makes a mockery of the legislative process. Gays, Lesbians and other minority groups should be especially wary of establishing a precedent that could easily be turned against us.

In the end, I think that the proponents should be given authority to represent the state’s interest if no one else will do it. As much as I would like to see Prop 8 struck down, win I don’t want that victory to have the consequence of slamming the courtroom door shut in the faces of future litigants. Also, remember that if Judge Walker’s ruling is upheld because of lack of standing, no precedent will be set, and there will be no effects beyond California. The ruling would not even prohibit a similar initiative from being passed in the future. While I think that there’s a really good chance that Prop 8 will be struck down on the merits, I would rather lose this case than to win at the cost of the long-term health of our judicial system.

1. The Ninth Circuit also asked whether California law gave the proponents a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity, but for reasons tangential to this post, I think this is so unlikely as to not be worth addressing.

My Open Letter to Senators Hatch and Bennett

2010-08-04T13:15:00.001-06:00

I am writing to strongly encourage the Senator to announce his support of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. START is an important step toward increasing US legitimacy and soft power in the realm of Non-Proliferation. This soft power will be key to resurrecting the Non-Proliferation Treaty and increasing international pressure on Iran.

While I recognize the need for efforts such as the Stockpile Stewardship Program and other efforts to modernize and maintain our stockpile and delivery systems, ratification of START cannot wait until the funds for those projects are appropriated as Senator Kyl is proposing. Each day that the Senate dithers, the perception grows stronger that the United States cannot or will not lead on this issue. If we do not lead, no one else will follow.

The non-proliferation regime is the easiest, most effective, and cheapest way for the US to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states. Growing up in southern Utah, I have seen the disastrous effects of the pursuit of nuclear weapons on what the US Government called a "low-use" segment of the population. I hope you share my commitment to the ultimate goal of a nuclear weapon free world so that the people of our state, our nation, and our world will not have to suffer as my family and neighbors did.

So, Senator, there is no time to delay. I urge you to announce your intent to vote in favor of ratifying START--not after certain funds have been appropriated, not after the next Congress, but now. Do it in honor of your constituents that felt the effects of nuclear weapons first-hand.

Friday Music Post: Found Music Edition

2010-01-08T09:23:00.000-07:00

Amazing what you can do with a bass line and video editing:

A grand conspiracy

2010-01-07T09:55:00.000-07:00

Apparently, the global warming conspiracy isn't limited to Al Gore--LBJ, Frank Capra, Charlton Heston were all inon it:

(but seriously, can someone tell me--where is the profit in this plan of "manufacturing a climate change conspiracy for fun and profit"? Whenever I hear someone talk about how this is a big conspiracy, I can't help but think of this diagram:

This made me laugh

2010-01-06T09:18:00.000-07:00

Beginning of the End for DOMA, Part III: Inside Baseball Edition

2010-01-05T09:37:00.001-07:00

So, I earlier blogged about the orders by Judges Kozinski and Reinhardt ordering that same-sex spouses of employees of the Ninth Circuit be granted employment benefits hereand here. It turns out that the Obama Administration has refused to follow the order, stating that this was an administrative decision that is not binding on the Office of Personnel Management, and that until the courts issue a judicial ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA, the executive branch has an independent obligation to follow the law as interpreted by the justice department. The usual suspects are predictably outraged:

You can just smell that the administration did everything they could, twisted every word, to find an excuse for not providing the benefits. After all, if they give the partners of gay employees health benefits, then someone might accuse Barack Obama of being just a bit too friendly with the gays. And as we've learned over the last year, Obama doesn't do "controversial."¹

The statement I just quoted is an excellent example of what happens when you're more interested in pushing a certain narrative rather than understanding what is really happening. The quote asks you to believe, despite the fact that the press release from the OPM calls for the legislative repeal of DOMA, that the administration really wants to keep DOMA around just so it can use gays as a punching bag. This conclusion does not fit the data and requires the use of conspiracy theories to be coherent. A much simpler explanation is that the administration does not want to set the precedent that an administrative tribunal from a different branch of government can give orders the executive branch. In short, this is a turf battle.²

Separation of powers is an incredibly technical and boring issue; it doesn't arouse passions the way that equal protection and civil rights issues do. It is a classic "inside baseball" topic that few care about and even fewer understand, including reporters and commentators. However, if you want to understand why the administration will fight a ruling that they agree with as a matter of policy, you have to get into the more arcane details.

This clip is another example of the inside baseball principle:

To look at it, it looks like Republicans are shouting down their Democratic colleagues. That is how it was reported in the media. The reality is more complex: the Democrats had lined up all the female members of their caucus to give what amounted to one-sentence speeches in the guise of unanimous consent requests. The GOP wanted to stop it, but wasn't quite sure how. While the actions of Rep. King et al. that you see here are not smart politics, they aren't malevolent and obstructionist like they appear to be if you don't know what's going on.

I am not taking a position on whether Kozinski or the OPM is in the right here--that's an obscure issue that I'm not incredibly interested in.³ I just wanted to point out what the real issue is here. Occam's razor posits that the simplest explanation tends to be the best one. In politics, the mundane explanation may not sell newspapers, but it tends to be correct.

I struggled mightily on whether to include this link, as the idea of increasing John Aravosis's traffic even a little bit nauseates me. But for you, dear readers, I will swallow the bile and give you the full context.
As further proof that this is a turf war, consider that Judge Reinhardt's order in In Re Levenson, decided at the same time as Judge Kozinski's case, did not direct the OPM to cover Mr. Levenson's spouse, but rather awarded him back pay to cover the denial of the benefit. The Obama administration did not challenge this, and Levenson is currently getting his benefits.
If anyone wants to look up whether the hearing officers for the Congressional Accountability Office of Compliance have the authority to direct the OPM to take a certain action, do so and report back to me.

Veteran's Day 2009

2010-01-04T09:50:00.000-07:00

Salt Lake Men's Choir sings the Star-Spangled Banner:

I'm three rows up, directly above the guy in camo pants. Sound is a little muddled, but that's what comes of singing in a rotunda--listen to it ring for about two seconds after we finish.

Merry Christmas

2009-12-24T21:22:00.001-07:00

Here's my present to you all:

Why the "Kill the Bill" people have no sense

2009-12-22T10:27:00.000-07:00

OK--This is my last post of the year (besides a Christmas video I just set on auto-post) So I'm gonna rant about something that has been making me absolutely crazy: Reading all of these lefty bloggers like Jane Hamsher trying to say that instead of passing the bill without a public option, they should just kill it and start over. This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have heard since, well, shoot, I just remembered this, so I guess it's been the past two weeks or so.

In evaluating whether to pass any policy, there are three questions to ask:

What are the benefits of the proposed policy compared to the status quo?
what are the costs of the proposed policy compared to the status quo?
Do the benefits of number 1 outweigh the costs of number 2?

Any other question is irrelevant and should not be considered. The questions to not be considered include the question "could the policy be better?"* That may be a good question when it is time to craft or amend legislation, but is totally irrelevant when asking whether the policy should be passed or not. Advocating that a bill be defeated because it is not as good as the best option, even though it's better than the status quo is not progressive or idealistic--it's petulant and naive.

For those of you who would argue that it is the "progressives'" way of trying to make the senate accede to their demands as they do with conservative democrats, I have news for you--these sorts of threats only work if they're rational. Conservative democrats have leverage on this issue because based on their interests, their objections are rational. No amount of wailing about the lack of a public option would give you leverage because at the end of the day, if you are rational, everyone knows you'll vote for the bill. What's more, If you're the kind of progressive who would cut off his nose to spite his face, the conservative faction won't hesitate to give you a knife.

While no one would argue that this is an ideal bill, the bill goes a long way to fixing what is wrong with out insurance system. That's pretty amazing. Now is the time to celebrate and encourage the conferees to make the final bill as good as it can be, rather than throwing rocks at the Democratic leadership because they didn't make a perfect bill.

* There is one important exception to this--if passing the policy now would make it harder for a better policy to pass in the future than it would be if we didn't pass the policy, that is a valid consideration in determining the costs and benefits of the policy. Since this is a bill that comes once in a generation and progressive reforms tend to lead to more progressive reforms being passed, this argument does not apply to the health care debate.

Payback

2009-12-16T09:04:00.000-07:00

Max Weinberg repays Orrin Hatch for the Hanukkah Song he inflicted upon the world.

The Church and the Gays: A Modest Proposal

2009-12-15T09:56:00.001-07:00

This will likely be my last post on this topic for a while, as I have managed to say everything that's been floating around in my head. I believe I have said on this blog earlier that I am in an uncomfortable position. Being gay and in a lover of the LDS Church and its members, I have a foot in two worlds that seem diametrically opposed to each other. However, I firmly believe that there are far too many good people on both sides to keep us apart forever.

But what would a rapproachment look like? I think it has to take into account the core concerns of both communities. The LDS Church's core interest is in protecting their ability to preach, congregate, and worship as they please. The gay community's core concern is making sure that their relationships are on an equal footing with straight relationships in the eyes of the State. Any compromise would have to guarantee religious freedom and civil equality. I have written on this issue quite a bit, and have come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage does not infringe on religious freedom, while creating marriage-like statuses that are called something other than marriage does not lead to civil equality.

With that in mind, here is my idea of a compromise that would cover each side's core concerns:

1. The Church reiterates its religious opinion that “marriage is between a man and a woman,” and that they will continue to only recognize and perform temple and non-temple marriages for opposite sex couples.

2. The Church also notes that marriage is both a secular institution and a religious institution. To the extent that the State would attempt to impose upon the Church the obligation to accept practices that are against its doctrines, the state would be committing a grievous violation of the “sacred freedom of conscience” and the Church would actively resist any efforts to have such an obligation imposed on them.

3. However, the Church also notes that marriage is the institution that the government has chosen to regulate and organize secular society. The Church admits that, even though they may not believe that homosexual behavior is consistent with God’s will, as a matter of good policy and fairness, these relationships should be equal under the law. While the Church had hoped that a parallel institution would protect the rights of same-sex couples wile recognizing the religious importance of marriage, if the civil authorities, including the legislature, electorate, or the judiciary, decide that such a parallel institution cannot be equal, the Church will not oppose the use of the term marriage to describe these relationships for governmental purposes.

4. The Church issues this statement with the full cooperation with Joe Solmonese or some other mucky-muck from a prominent gay-rights group. Said person will make some appropriate conciliatory gesture, including apologies for intemperate rhetoric and lack of civility, the importance of the freedom of conscience, which protects both the Church and the gay community (explicit reference to the 11th article of faith would be appropriate), the mutual commitment to protecting the integrity of all families, and the commitment to work together in unity.

This is just off the top of my head and may be far too weak and capitulatory as far as the Church is concerned. I admit that this may look as though they are bowing to outside pressure, so any and all adjustments to this hypothetical scenario are welcome.

It's the most wonderful time of the year

2009-12-14T09:23:00.003-07:00

The War on Christmas, ably illustrated by one of my favorite webcomics:

Shameless Advertising, Part 3

2009-12-11T09:25:00.000-07:00

One final reminder: the Christmas Concert is tonight and tomorrow night--hope to see you there.

If you're always this grumpy, why would you ever need them?

2009-12-10T09:30:00.000-07:00

I've never denied the charge of being a bit persnickety about grammar and punctuation. But this polemic against emoticons takes the cake:

Mary Elizabeth Williams, Death to Smiley: Why Emoticons Need to Die*

I think the appropriate response is as follows:

Shameless Advertising, Part 2

2009-12-09T09:22:00.001-07:00

More of what you'll be missing out on if you don't show up Friday or Saturday:

Beginning of the end for DOMA part 2

2009-12-08T09:58:00.001-07:00

I previously blogged about a very interesting pair of cases in the Ninth Circuit refusing to apply Federal DOMA. It turns out that the Office of Personnel Management has refused to comply with the order, leading Chief Judge Kozinski to issue the following memorandum decision. Judge Reinhardt issued a similar decision here.

I'm not sure what the Obama administration's motives are here. If this is an attempt to to set up an appeal over federal DOMA, it seems that it would have been better to appeal the case in the first instance rather than just refuse to follow the court's order. I suppose we'll find out within a few days, however. The OPM has until December 18 to file an appeal.

Shameless Advertising, Part 1

2009-12-07T09:18:00.000-07:00

More music from the concert on the 11th and 12th--If you're in the SLC area, come. Tickets are $10 at the door, or get a hold of me if you need a discount...

Friday Music Post: Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas

2009-12-04T09:11:00.000-07:00

Something to get you in the Christmas Spirit.

Oh, and don't forget the Christmas concert:

On the supernatural

2009-12-03T09:21:00.000-07:00

This is the most evenhanded illustration of the difference between science and the supernatural I've ever seen. Would that we all had such a measured and logical way of communicating:

It's December!

2009-12-02T09:16:00.000-07:00

Let's get the holiday season started off right:

The LDS Church and Gays--The Long and Winding Road

2009-12-01T09:40:00.000-07:00

As I stated before Thanksgiving, it seems that the Church's about-face on housing and employment rights is indicative of a wider change of attitude toward recognizing that sexual orientation actually exists. The following is from a paper I wrote while I was in law school that documents some of the changes:

The present attitude toward homosexuality seemed to begin in about the late 1950s. Before this, it had been common practice to simply “drop them from positions they held,”¹ to use J. Reuben Clark’s words. Elders Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Petersen were called to counsel homosexual members in about 1961,² and Brigham Young University began electroshock aversive therapy to “cure” homosexuality.³ In 1962, the Church issued a directive that “no one will be admitted as a student at the B.Y.U. whom we have convincing evidence is a homosexual.”⁴

The rhetoric of Church leaders became harsher as well. President David O. McKay declared homosexuality in his view to be “worse than [heterosexual] immorality . . . , a filthy and unnatural habit.”⁵ Spencer W. Kimball called homosexuality a habit based on selfishness and caused by masturbation,⁶ declared that it was contrary to the nature of God and therefore unnatural,⁷ and concluded that no real love could spring from homosexual coupling.⁸ He also believed it could be cured, and suggested that those who had failed had simply not tried hard enough: “How can you say the door cannot be opened until your knuckles are bloody, till your head is bruised, till your muscles are sore? It can be done.”⁹ Boyd K. Packer, in a talk in a 1976 general conference, cited with approval the assault of a homosexual by his missionary companion for “self-protection.”¹⁰

Church leaders’ abhorrence of homosexuality is not all that surprising given the dominant paradigm of homosexual culture at the time. In the late 1960s and -70s, the sexual revolution was just gaining momentum, and gay culture was at the forefront of a movement that seemed to have abandoned any semblance of morality in favor of a hedonistic existence. Gay journalist and scholar Jonathan Rauch recounts: “The master narrative for gay life was: come out, leave home, gorge at the banquet of sexual liberation. Gay men celebrated their image as sexual rebels; straight America was happy to consign them to that role.”¹¹ Is it any wonder that Spencer W. Kimball questioned gay members of the church that he counseled: “what would [your homosexual partner] do for you . . . should you suddenly fall victim to a dread disease, an incurable disease? Suppose your body shriveled; suppose you could no longer satisfy or get satisfaction sexually; suppose you could no longer be ‘used.’ How long would the alleged friendship or friendly ties last?”¹²

Kimball’s words were prescient. The dread disease did come; the AIDS epidemic changed the narrative of gay culture “from ubiquitous sex to ubiquitous death . . . . For the stricken there were lesions, chills, wasting, death; for friends and lovers, there was grief compounded by despair.”¹³ But this culture of death provided a crucible out of which was forged a culture of life. “Lovers, friends and AIDS ‘buddies’ were spooning food, emptying bedpans, holding wracked bodies through the night.”¹⁴ Many gay couples proved that same-sex love was more than the pursuit of pleasure; it was love and community as real as that found in traditional society. This shift in gay culture has not gone unnoticed by Church leaders, who have more recently softened their rhetoric regarding homosexuality. The focus of many general authorities when discussing the subject has tended to emphasize the difference between orientation and behavior and admitting that for many, homosexuality may be a lifetime condition.¹⁵

D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example 376 (1996).
Edward L. Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball 85–86 (2005). Kimball and Petersen reported counseling almost one thousand individuals between 1961 and 1968. Id. at 86 n.4.
Quinn, supra note 1, at 379. While some documentation suggests that this practice was ended in the late 1960s, see Gary James Bergera & Ronald Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith 82 (1985), there is evidence of these practices continuing on well after that time, see Rocky O’Donovan, “The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature”: A Brief History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980, in Multiply and Replenish 123, 157 (Brent Corcoran, ed. 1994) (citing several doctrinal dissertations from BYU students on electroshock therapy conducted in the 1970s).
Quinn, supra note 1, at 379.
Id. at 376.
Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness 78 (1969) [hereinafter Miracle of Forgiveness]; Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball 275 (Edward L. Kimball, ed. 1982) [hereinafter Teachings].
Teachings, supra note 6, at 276 (“‘God made me that way,’ some say . . . . This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be ‘that way’?”).
Id. at 274.
Miracle of Forgiveness, supra note 6, at 82.
Boyd K Packer, To Young Men Only (1976) (“There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist . . . .While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess . . . . After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, “I hit my companion.” . . . After learning a little more, my response was “Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way.”). This talk has been excluded from the Ensign and Conference reports, but is produced as a pamphlet and published by the Church.
Jonathan Rauch, Families Forged by Illness, N.Y. Times, June 4, 2006, § 4, at 15.
Spencer W. Kimball, New Horizons for Homosexuals 28 (1974).
Rauch, supra note 11, at 15.
Id.
See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Issues Resources: Same-Gender Attraction (Aug. 14, 2006), http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction (the 2006 interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman).

I love the [insert decade here]'s

2009-11-30T09:13:00.000-07:00

Boy, I can't wait for the next ten minutes to be over with so I can be nostalgic about it.

Please check out #44, which is just pure awesomeness:

Dear Mr. Lucas:

It has come to our attention that your actions over the past decade in the production of the films Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones and Star Wars Episode 3: Return of the Sith (hereafter referred to as "Star Bores") as well as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (hereafter referred to as "Grandpa Jones") infringes upon the rights of millions of moviegoers to preserve their childhood memories unscathed. This is a clear violation of your contract with the public to create films worthy of the legacy that you, yourself, began in 1977. Your recent actions have been grossly negligent, displaying a complete lack of regard for taste and artistic merit. Star Bores and Grandpa Jones represent a failure to satisfy the duty of care mandated for a filmmaker of your status.

Happy Thanksgiving

2009-11-24T09:15:00.000-07:00

I'll be back next week with more posts, but for now, let me plug the concert again and give you another preview:

Pure awesome

2009-11-23T09:06:00.001-07:00

This is the coolest thing I've seen in a while:

Friday music post: Ave Maria

2009-11-20T09:21:00.001-07:00

Come to the Salt Lake Men's Choir's Christmas Concert. We will be singing some great numbers, including this one:

The history of the LDS Church's position on housing and employment rights for gays

2009-11-19T09:01:00.004-07:00

UPDATE: Welcome, Times & Seasons readers! You may want to check out the greatest hits of my blog here.

Over the last few days, I have been involved in a conversation at another blog. One of the questions was whether the Church’s recent endorsement of the Salt Lake City anti-discrimination ordinance is "entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters" as its statement indicates. The Church's current position is certainly consistent with their statement given before the Proposition 8 vote that "The Church does not object to rights . . . regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference." However, the record of the Church previous to the 2008 vote is much less clear.

Before I get into the results of my research, I want to hedge a bit: Because the Church has so many ways of unofficially putting out its message (the Deseret News, mid-level officials, etc.), trying to interpret whether a message reflects the desires of the Church is often an exercise in Kremlinology. Therefore, I will try to give you my primary sources so that you can decide for yourself whether you agree with my conclusions. With that disclaimer out of the way, let me begin . . . .

I initially stated at T&S that I thought that the Church had publicly opposed housing and employment protections for gays. This is because I had remembered reading that they supported Colorado's Amendment 2, which prohibited any designation of gays as a protected class until it was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. I reviewed my notes, and my source for this was Michael Quinn. His support for this conclusion, however, was based on the fact that Rex E. Lee helped draft the brief in support of the amendment while he was president of BYU, which would have "required specific approval from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles." This seemed somewhat inconclusive to me, and so I went in search of more evidence.

While I could not find any other contemporaneous accounts of LDS involvement in Amendment 2, I did find some information on another event that the Church seemed more involved in. In late 1997, the Salt Lake City council passed an ordinance similar to the one that was just passed. While the Church did not make an official statement at the time, editorials (see also) in opposition to the ordinance were written by the Deseret News, and the Area President over Salt Lake City instructed bishops to encourage their congregations to attend the city council meeting on the night when they were to vote on whether to repeal the ordinance.

While it is likely that none of these items in isolation would provide good evidence as to the Church's position regarding housing and employment rights, taken as a whole, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Church was working against these measures.* Indeed, rhetorical choices such as "granting official sanction to the same-sex lifestyle" sound somewhat familiar.

However, if you really want to figure out if the Church has changed its position on gays and lesbians, just take a tour of old Ensigns. The official position of the Church as recently as 1996 was that there were no such people as gays and lesbians:

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

Comparing last week's announcement to that statement is like comparing night and day. By advocating housing and employment rights, the Church has crossed the chasm from adjective to noun--that is, the Church acknowledges that gays and lesbians exist. And that's a mighty big first step.

* There is, however, one really fantastic story in Idaho of how the Mormons were the crucial vote in defeating an amendment similar to Colorado's Amendment 2. But that's a story for another post . . . .

Tech Support

2009-11-18T09:55:00.001-07:00

News Flash: LDS Church comes out in favor of (some) equal rights for gays

2009-11-17T09:57:00.002-07:00

So by now, you've all heard the news that the LDS Church has backed a Salt Lake City ordinance that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in housing and employment. Elder Holland has even suggested that the statute should be applied more widely, leading some to wonder whether this will give momentum to the Common Ground Initiative, which ended up stalled in the last legislative session. Even conservative Senator Chris Buttars admitted that "a person ought to be able to have a roof over their head and have a job. I don't have any problem with that."

Many in the gay community have argued that this is a transparent PR move. Maybe they're right, but I don't think it matters. Any softening of the Church's position deserves a great deal of praise, regardless of the reason the change was made. If the gay rights movement is only for those on board 100% of the time, we will fail. Being encouraging, civil, and looking for areas of common ground and agreement does more to help the cause of gay rights than insisting on ideological purity will. I agree with Andrew Sullivan:

For this degree of respect - even if it is not fully what I want or what gays truly deserve - we should reciprocate with respect as well. This is a moment of genuine dialogue and civil compromise. And it was accomplished in Salt Lake City among gay and straight Mormons and gay and straight non-Mormons in a way that other Christians in other places have been unable to replicate.

I communicate often with an LDS man from California who is totally rational in just about every topic that I have talked to him about, except for the gay issue. He is unable to believe that the gay community is willing to enter into dialogue. He is a person who many would say is anti-gay to the core, and yet it is clear to me that he is someone who can be reached if he can get over the bitter taste in his mouth. While I am not suggesting that we offer the Church unfettered praise for their actions, the Church needs to be recognized by our community for their efforts in trying to bridge the gap--that is the best way to encourage future progress.

Schadenfreude

2009-11-16T09:24:00.000-07:00

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Friday music post: Rhythm of Life

2009-11-13T09:18:00.002-07:00

In case you missed the October choir show: (Fixed the broken link)

Big props to my property professor

2009-11-12T09:14:00.000-07:00

Way to be a good sport, Professor Fee:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Nailed 'Em - Mormon Church Trespassing

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

U.S. Speedskating

Apparently the BBC does not subscribe to the mercy rule

2009-11-11T09:18:00.001-07:00

You definitely need to watch this debate. The archbishop of Nigeria and an English Conservative MP debate Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry on the motion "that the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world."

As a former debater, allow me to give a couple points of constructive criticism:

Don't do your topic analysis in the final speech.
Make sure you don't bring up what most would believe would be one of your weak points (see AIDS in Africa) as a plus for your side.
try and pick a debate partner whose voice does not make set people into convulsions.
At lease try to be conversant with the arguments against your side before appearing on national television and destroying whatever credibility your side has.

That is all.

How is this not front page news?

2009-11-10T09:05:00.000-07:00

So apparently, the LDS Church is lobbying for the business interests of its mission presidents. Check this out:

Several years ago, Salt Lake County was pushing a bill at the Legislature to allow its county and municipal fire departments to offer emergency ambulance service rather than having to contract with privately owned Gold Cross Ambulance . . . . However, Dan Eastman, then a state senator, told some legislative colleagues he had heard from LDS Church Apostle Russell M. Ballard, who discouraged any legislation that would hurt Gold Cross' business. The firm's owner, Gene Moffatt, was serving as an LDS mission president at the time, and Ballard felt it was unfair to go after the firm while Moffatt was away. So the watered-down bill that passed added new constraints that made it less attractive for local governments to bid against Gold Cross.

In Salt Lake County, two municipalities have done so anyway: West Valley City now operates its own ambulance service and Salt Lake City accepted the bid of Gold Cross competitor Southwest Ambulance Service. Still, Gold Cross maintains its monopoly in the rest of the county and in many locales around the state.

The subtle nihilism of horserace politics

2009-11-08T20:41:00.004-07:00

This pissed me off enough to come out of my blogging sabbatical:

The extremes of the anti-war left before Iraq were every bit as inflammatory and loopy as the Tea Partiers today. Now, they were opposing a war that turned out to be a catastrophe for all involved, while the Tea Partiers are just opposing the working poor having a chance to buy health insurance. But if Godwin's Law is the point, many (but not all) on the left currently do not have a leg to stand on.

Putting aside for the moment the accuracy of the statement, the assumption that "Godwin's Law is the point" is astounding, but unfortunately altogether too common among the Washington commentariat. Most of the punditocracy has come to view politics as some sort of a game: form is analyzed while substance is ignored. The question is never "who is right?" but always "who won?"

Viewing politics as some sort of game in which there is no good, bad, right, or wrong, only winners and losers, is nihilism, pure and simple. Equating one side's employment of ad hitlerium arguments in service of denying people health care with employing those arguments in service of avoiding a disastrous foreign policy misadventure is akin to equating killing someone in self defense and killing someone because the sun was in your eyes. Politics is more than a game. The wise use of the power and resources of the State can lead to freedom, prosperity and enlightenment. Misuse of the State can lead to tyranny and misery. Politics, in many cases, really is a matter of life and death.

Now the obvious rejoinder to my point is that the Teabaggers sincerely believe that the health care plan will lead to tyranny and misery. However, this argument is again, rooted in nihilism, albeit a form of nihilism that has found a home in the major news networks. While in a pluralistic society all points of view should be tolerated, it does not follow that all points of view should be given equal respect. The Teabaggers' arguments have no foundation in evidence or logic and are not deserving of any more than a thorough debunking. The news media's insistence on reporting the controversy rather than analyzing the facts underlying that controversy is an implicit statement that there is no truth and that all points of view are equally valid. In sum, focusing on balance and tone to the absence of facts and substance says that a person's opinion on issues of war and peace is no more consequential than whether he or she likes Pet Sounds more than Rubber Soul. I will speak against this sort of nihilism at every opportunity, and if I sound shrill while doing it, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

Behavior Modification Therapy

2009-09-22T10:13:00.000-06:00

Sure, Alli blocks the absorption of fat that you eat. But that isn't why you'll lose weight when you take it.*

*--Yes, I know I haven't explained why I haven't posted in four months. Next time, I promise. Just enjoy this for now.

Friday music post: Because

2009-05-01T09:16:00.000-06:00

Don't talk--just listen.

What I was doing instead of blogging

2009-04-28T10:42:00.006-06:00

I was redoing my office. I inherited an office with walls that looked like this:

Needless to say, this was not acceptable. So, I repainted, got new office furniture, and hung up some pictures, and here we are:

This is the view as you enter my office. I will be replacing the office chair sometime soon.

This is my grandfather's desk, which now belongs to my brother and he is graciously letting me use. A lot of the pictures are his as well.

This is the peace lily that I got from my dad's funeral last May--it's sitting on a walnut chair my brother got from Jordan High School.

You can see here what I did with that hideous wallpaper--I left the portion below the chair rail as a faux-wainscoting.

I bought this desk for $150 at a used furniture store. It matches the roll top desk perfectly and it's solid walnut. A little polishing and a glass cover and it looks great. I am changing the knobs to something a little less target-like, but the new knobs are on back order and won't be here for a week.

Finally, here is my view. It will be supplemented by a large antique framed map as soon as the map gets out of the frame shop. I will also be getting new chairs as soon as I have the money to do so.

Anyway, I just got done with this yesterday, so let me know what you think.

UPDATE: Just got this from the framing shop:

Quote for the day

2009-04-27T09:17:00.001-06:00

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”

Kung-Fu Monkey

Friday music post: Agnus Dei

2009-04-24T09:56:00.000-06:00

I know it's late for Easter, but I got it up before Pentecost--what more do you want?

A distraction for your Thursday

2009-04-23T09:45:00.000-06:00

I was going to write about the torture memos, but I got sucked in playing the new Gemcraft game because I didn't want to think about it. Give it a try, but don't be surprised if you end up losing track of time.

The stupid, it burns...

2009-04-22T09:52:00.000-06:00

First tea-bagging, and now this:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad

colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

NASA Name Contest

And of course, no one is better at mocking it than Stephen Colbert. By the way, National Organization for Marriage's campaign is called . . .

Wait for it . . .

Two million for marriage, or 2M4M for short. So, so, sad . . . .

Mind the Gaps

2009-04-21T09:55:00.000-06:00

I have long argued that a belief in organic evolution was not incompatible with a belief in God or some other metaphysical belief. My support for this was Stephen Jay Gould's argument for "Non-Overlapping Magisteria:"

The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.

However, the more I have thought about the idea that science and religion are trying to answer totally different questions, the more I realize that Gould is talking about something different than what most people think of as religion. How much different would religion look if, as Gould suggests, it were limited to questions of meaning and value?

For one thing, there would be no miracles, or at least not as miracles are currently regarded. It is a tenet of most believers' faith that God answers prayers not only through inner peace and inspiration, but also through actual intervention in the physical world. If God were to intervene in that way, science would be able to detect his presence. The problem with actual, physical miracles is that they are not normative, but rather descriptive. The believer is claiming that an event was brought about by divine intervention. That is a testable claim.

The way to get around this dilemma would be to posit that God does not actually intervene in the physical world, but rather, being omniscient, had the foreknowledge to plant the seed of the miracle in the foundations of the universe. While this is a perfectly reasonable way of reformulating the idea of miracles, it calls into question the necessity of prayer. Why should the believer ask for divine favor when the die has been cast already? While one can argue that it is to show faith and penitence, that is a much different view of prayer than most adhere to.

While a totally non-descriptive religion is possible, I wonder if the idea of a God who does not perform miracles would be attractive to most believers. Cordoning off religion to the realm of ethics, rather than its former position of being priest, lawyer, scholar and king is disconcerting. Fundamentalism is attractive to many because the idea of shared authority does not provide the surety that they need in their lives. Can religion survive as one voice among many? Time will tell, I guess . . . .

An update

2009-04-20T16:42:00.003-06:00

Sometimes your body just forces you to slow down.

The last three weekends, I've been busy. Very busy. I stripped off the wallpaper in my office and painted three weekends ago. I was doing taxes two weekends ago, and this last weekend I went to St. George and sang with the choir. Since the only time I usually have to blog is on the weekends, my blog turned into a ghost town. But this morning, I woke up with a sore throat from hell. I was having difficulty swallowing, and my tongue and glands felt swollen. I went to the doctor and was (unsurprisingly, given how I felt) diagnosed with strep throat.

But, dear readers, my suffering is your gain, because being cooped up in the house for a few days will give me some time to actually do some blogging. So, this week, I will wrap up the LDS same-sex marriage series, blog about the events in Iowa and Vermont, and generally pick up my blogging life again. I hope you enjoy it. Feel free to comment and send my posts to your friends. Sometimes I feel like the ghost in The Ring--I'm not looking for peace, just publicity.

So, while you're waiting for new material, why don't you take a minute and read some of my other work?

LDS Doctrine and Same-Sex Couples:part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, and part 6.

The Prop 8 case: A legal analysis of Strauss v. Horton: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

Same-Sex Marriage, equality and Religious Freedom: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8.

Rants on Religion: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Random musings about Science, politics, grammar, and bathroom graffiti: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7.

Reality is stranger than South Park

2009-04-06T09:13:00.000-06:00

Headline: An elderly man lost control of his luxury sedan Sunday afternoon in Redondo Beach, injuring more than a dozen people when he plowed into a restaurant. That sounds awfully familiar . . .

Friday music post: Sinister

2009-04-03T09:04:00.000-06:00

Posted without further comment

2009-04-01T09:28:00.000-06:00

LDS Doctrine and Same-Sex Couples, part 6: Prophetic Authority

2009-03-31T09:34:00.002-06:00

Part six of the continuing series... click for part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5.

The belief in modern revelation is one of the distinctive features of the Church. Members of the Church sustain the leaders of the Church as prophets, seers, and revelators and look to them to declare the word of God for our time. Doctrine and Covenants 68:4 proclaims that the words of the prophets, “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost[,] shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” Clearly, the current leadership of the Church has decided that homosexual activity is sinful. However, to claim that this is the end of the story would be to ignore the dynamics of revelation within the Church.

The scriptures claim that God is “the same yesterday, today, and forever . . . ,” (1 Ne. 10:18) and that he does not “vary from that which he hath said.” (Alma 7:20) However, the Church makes changes constantly, from mundane policy changes like changing the length of missions, to dramatic changes in doctrine like the manifesto banning plural marriage and the extension of the priesthood to all men regardless of race. While these changes may seem to conflict with the scriptures quoted above, it can be explained by the fact that revelation, even the revelation given to Church leaders, is limited by certain principles.

The first principle is that revelation is a human-mediated process. While the Church is led by prophets, it does not follow that all words and actions of the Church and its leaders are therefore from the Lord. It is commonly understood in the Church that the leadership of the Church receives constant revelation and guidance regarding the everyday affairs of the Church. But if we take at face value the idea that revelation guides the Church on a daily basis, it becomes easy to infer that the Church is exactly the way that God would have it be in every detail; bureaucratic inertia, political compromise, and the personal passions of individuals are assumed to have divine stamp of approval. This is not the case. Church leaders are fallible and have their own priorities and prejudices. Brigham Young said that the brethren “are all liable to err . . . and many may think that a man in my standing ought to be perfect; no such thing.”¹ While it results in an imperfect expression of his will, the Lord accepts such imperfections and shortcomings. Thus, it is possible for Church policy to be based not the unadulterated word of the Lord but rather on the understandings, prejudices, and preferences of human leaders.

Secondly, revelation must be understood as the expression of the will of a perfect God to imperfect people. The process of revelation is described in the scriptures as occurring “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little . . . .” (2 Ne. 28:30) The logic of gradualism is described in the Doctrine and Covenants: “Behold, ye are little children and ye cannot bear all things now; ye must grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth.” (D&C 50:40) Those not prepared to receive and live a higher law will not be given the law and therefore will escape the condemnation that would come with it.

Finally, revelation is a process that is, as a rule, initiated by humans. The model for receiving revelation is to search, ponder, and pray for confirmation. God will not give knowledge that a person has not asked for, and that knowledge will not be given without study on the individual’s part. The Doctrine and Covenants explains that “you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask [God] if it be right . . . .” (D&C 9:8) This requirement provides a barrier to an individual, or for that matter, the Church, receiving the will of God. If there is no concerted effort to ask and resolve a question, God will not provide an answer.

These limitations provide space for the possibility of change for the status of homosexuality in the Church. The 1978 lifting of the priesthood ban is a good example of the change of a doctrine said to be eternal. While the position of the Church in its early years seemed to be ambiguous on the question of slavery and ordination of black members to the priesthood, by the tenure of Brigham Young, the practice of denying the priesthood to blacks was established. Young spoke to the subject in 1852: “[A]ny man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] . . . in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other [p]rophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it . . . .”² Young also declared miscegenation to be an offense worthy of death, declaring that “if the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”³

Doctrinal explanations were constructed to explain President Young’s teaching. Orson Hyde and Orson Pratt, among others, proffered the hypothesis that those of African blood were less valiant in the pre-earth life, choosing to fight for neither God nor the devil in the war in heaven. Scripture was also employed to justify the doctrine. Mormons borrowed the biblical scriptures employed to justify the ownership of slaves to justify their doctrine. Restoration scripture was used to extend this doctrine as well.

The attitudes of the Church reflected the attitudes of the wider society, which viewed blacks as inferior. While there was a difference of opinion within the Church, Oliver Cowdery’s statements against abolition are illustrative of the attitude of many at the time: “Let the blacks of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves for the necessaries of life—endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streets . . . .”⁴ The practices of the Church in supporting segregation, denying accommodations to blacks in Church-owned hotels, and LDS hospital’s maintenance of an all-white blood bank are further evidence of Mormons taking on the attitudes of the wider population.

Changing attitudes about race inside and outside of Mormon society, as well as the practical difficulties of maintaining the priesthood ban, led to its ultimate demise in 1978. While the Church initially resisted movement toward racial integration, legal and social developments within the United States put pressure on the Church to review its position and support black civil rights, while preserving the priesthood ban. President Hugh B. Brown called for the Church to extend at least the Aaronic Priesthood to black members in 1965, and in 1969 called for the end of the ban altogether. But this was not to be at the time, and Joseph Fielding Smith, successor to President McKay, reaffirmed the status of the ban.

Meanwhile, the civil rights movement found an effective way to put pressure on the Church: its university. BYU athletic teams were met with protests when they competed at other schools, and some schools severed ties with BYU entirely. The pressure put on the Church and its members regarding the priesthood ban resulted in what Mauss called a “siege mentality”; resulting in Utah members taking precautions against the “expected black onslaught,” an increase in racist remarks and race hostility within the Church, and the circulation of rumors of black mobs attacking cars with Utah license plates.

While this pressure was significant, it is more likely that the heartache of injustice was not nearly as influential towards the lifting of the priesthood ban as the headaches of administration it caused. The priesthood ban became a quandary for proselyting efforts in Latin America, where miscegenation had caused the intermingling of African blood throughout much of the population. Men were ordained to the priesthood, only to have their privileges “suspended” because of suspicion regarding their ancestry. By 1978, there were 41,000 saints and a temple in the works in Brazil, the most racially diverse and intermixed of the countries of Latin America. In reviewing this, Mauss asserts that “[i]t seems unbelievable that a decision would deliberately have been made to build a temple in the most racially mixed country in the continent without a concomitant realization . . . that the priesthood ban would have to be ended.”

President Spencer W. Kimball, it seems, understood very well the implications of that decision. While he had been a faithful supporter of the Church’s position on the priesthood ban as a member of the Twelve, his ascension to the presidency of the Church made him feel a “direct, personal responsibility to discover the Lord’s will” regarding blacks and the priesthood. President Kimball described the process of receiving an answer: “Day after day, and especially on Saturdays and Sundays when there were no organizations [sessions] in the temple, I went there where I could be alone . . . . I was very humble . . . . I was searching for this . . . . I wanted to be sure . . . . I had a great deal to fight . . . myself, largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life until my death and fight for it and defend it as it was.”⁵ Kimball encouraged the other apostles to search over the question themselves, wanting unanimous support from the brethren. Finally, the Church announced the change on September 30, 1978, where it was given to the general membership to sustain.

This episode in the Church’s history is instructive to the possibilities regarding the Church’s handling of the question of homosexuality. While Church leaders have asserted the eternal nature of commandments against homosexual conduct, those same assertions were made regarding interracial marriage and priesthood ordination by Brigham Young. While change in the Church is sometimes a slow and agonizing process, it can be done if there is a concerted effort to learn God’s will, and if the Church is ready for the change.

BRIGHAM YOUNG, 10 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 212 (1865).
Lester E. Bush, Jr., Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: A
Historical Overview, DIALOGUE: A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, Spring 1973, at 25.
Id. at 26.
Id. at 15.
EDWARD L. KIMBALL, LENGTHEN YOUR STRIDE: THE PRESIDENCY OF SPENCER W. KIMBALL 217 (2005).

Pure, unadulterated awesome

2009-03-30T09:46:00.002-06:00

Especially like the choice of song:

Friday music post: Philosophy

2009-03-27T09:19:00.001-06:00

I have no idea how I've gone this long without posting this:

Eppur si muove

2009-03-26T09:35:00.000-06:00

Last week, I made reference to Big Love's portrayal of portions of the LDS temple ceremony. After talking with some readers and friends about the post, I determined that there was a larger issue that it would be productive to discuss. While members of a faith consider their rites sacred, what about people who don't share that feeling? This question is by no means unique to the Big Love controversy. Muslims were outraged at the negative portrayal of Muhammad in a Danish political cartoon. Catholics were upset over PZ Myers' threats to subject communion wafers to "heinous cracker abuse." All of these episodes involve behavior considered blasphemous by members of a religious community perpetrated by non-believers. That raises the question of what level of deference an outsider to a religion owes to the members of a religion with respect to their sacred rites.

At the outset, I want to make it clear that this is not a legal question. In the United States, people are free to blaspheme with impunity because of the First Amendment. Rather, I am asking this question as a person committed to a pluralist society. I believe in a society where people are free to believe according to the dictates of their own consciences. This ideal cannot be enforced only by law; even bigots have First Amendment rights. We have an ethical and social obligation to promote religious tolerance and pluralism by our interaction with each other. There are certain standards of respect that we have an obligation to uphold because we are decent people that are committed to a just and free society.

However, there is a countervailing proposition: we cannot allow respect for other people's beliefs to stifle honest religious discussion and debate. Religious pluralism gives people the "right to be wrong," but it does not mean that everyone must be treated as though they are right. Pluralism is not relativism. In a pluralist society, the statement, "the Eucharist is just a cracker," is not out of bounds anymore than the statement, "the Eucharist is the body of Christ." Turning a critical eye to the practices and truth claims of a religion is a vital part of the pluralist project. Pluralism exists in the zone between religious bigotry and unquestioning deference to religious dogmas.

The rule that I have come up with is good faith. Non-believers owe a duty to believers to represent the beliefs and rites of the religion accurately and honestly, without resorting to logical fallacies or equivocation, and to act without fraud or deceit. This allows observers to make up their minds for themselves about the claims of the religion. The religion is not being slandered, and the restriction does not slide into moral relativism.

Notice that I did not talk about the motive of the person portraying the religious rites. This is because it is frankly irrelevant. Before you object, ask yourself this: would Mormons have been OK with the portrayal of the temple ceremony if it was done in a widely televised documentary for educational purposes? Would Scientologists have been OK with the information presented in the South Park episode if it were presented in a less mocking way? Would Catholics be OK with scientists driving nails through the Host if they were doing it to show that contrary to legend, the Host does not bleed when pierced? Or is it the case that blasphemy is blasphemy, regardless of the motive of the blasphemer?

I'm interested to know what you think. Is there a better place to draw the line? I'd love to hear from my readers regarding this. I will say, however, in formulating your rule, you keep in mind the Flying Spaghetti Monster rule: Any rule you propose insulating Christianity or any other major religion from criticism must also apply to Pastafarians. If you can't do that, you aren't proposing a pluralist rule.

Aware of all internet traditions, vol. 2: Time Cube

2009-03-25T09:35:00.000-06:00

You haven't seen this before? Seriously? Check it out—It's not every day you get to read something written by the world's wisest human.

LDS Doctrine and Same-Sex Couples, part 5: Exploring the Possibilities

2009-03-24T09:44:00.000-06:00

The widow’s problem is just one illustration of how little the Church claims to know about the architecture of the celestial society. The incongruence of current monogamous marriage practices with the plural marriages of the 19th century, not to mention Joseph Smith’s short-lived introduction of polyandry in Nauvoo, suggest that the plan of salvation as we understand it is too vague to conclusively foreclose the accommodation of homosexuality by the Church.

In fact, there is even an argument to be made in favor of eternal same-sex couples. While the assumption is that homosexuality is a temporary condition, this seems to contradict the LDS belief that “that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there . . . ,” (D&C 130:2) and “that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.” (Alma 34:34) The doctrine of eternal intelligence posits that there is a part of each of us that has always existed, an essential personality that is co-eternal with even God. The idea that homosexuality is a temporary affliction of the body rather than a part of the essence of personality conflicts with the experience of many gays and lesbians. It also fundamentally denies part of Mormon theology—that sexual desire is not a vice, but rather an eternal part of God’s plan. LDS scholar Wayne Schow explains:

Sexuality . . . is more than just the power of procreation . . . . [O]ur sexuality is self-expressive, a dynamic assertion of personal identity; it is a “fingerprint” of personal force . . . . More than simple gratification of all of our physical senses, sexual union can unify body, mind, and spirit . . . . To ignore this aspect of sexuality is to give up a rich and integrative dimension of personal wholeness. A life without sexual realization is not a complete life, however good it otherwise may be.¹

This question ultimately cannot be resolved in this life, but if homosexuality is part of eternal personality, then speculating about the will of God for these children in the eternities would be appropriate.

The basic objection to having two men or two women as an eternal coupling was the lack of fecundity that such a coupling would imply—how would such a pairing be able to produce worlds without number? The flaw in this argument lies with its central assumption—that spirit children are created sexually. There is no reason to believe this case beyond conventional wisdom, and thinking of the implications of the argument reveals the absurdity of applying traditional notions of mortal reproduction to the production of spirits. A woman would have to be pregnant constantly in order create the spirits necessary to populate planets. The process sounds more akin to a colony of bees than an equal partnership between husband and wife. The absurdity of this position is also shown by taking it to its logical extreme, as Joseph Fielding Smith did. Based on his understanding of eternal increase, he deduced that those assigned to less than the highest degree of glory would be resurrected without genitalia.

But the argument’s assumptions can be revealed one level further—there is no reason to believe that spirit production occurs at all. While some statements by general authorities suggest this to be the case, there is support for the idea that spirits are co-eternal with God, implying that the process of becoming spirit children of our heavenly parents did not require spiritual birth but rather adoption. This could be done as easily by a same-sex pair as by an opposite-sex couple, nullifying the logic of restricting eternal marriage to opposite-sex couples. This model has powerful support with the sealing doctrine, which teaches that families are not created by blood but rather by priesthood authority. (D&C 132:7)

The sealing of same-sex couples would not be unprecedented, either. While the current conception of the sealing ordinance is limited to monogamous marriage and sealing parents to children, earlier sealings included polygamous marriages, sealing to prominent Mormon families, and friendship sealings. If the Church were to recognize same-sex orientation as a part of eternal identity rather than a temporal affliction, these earlier sealing practices would allow for the introduction of new uses of the sealing power.

Another argument that can be raised against eternal same-sex marriage is the complementary nature of man and woman. The Proclamation on the Family states that “[g]ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” However, the document does not explain the reasoning behind this statement, and so we are left with little guidance to discover just what it is about gender that is essential (beyond the biological arguments above), and even less to say that both a man and a woman are essential for an eternal marriage. We must be careful not to extend the logic of current marriage relationships into the eternities. Marriage as we know it, and the gender roles that go along with it, has more rooting in the Industrial Revolution than in the eternities. To hold up this version of the marriage relationship as the ideal form of marriage ignores history and remakes God in our image.

In conclusion, the argument against same-sex relationships from the standpoint of the Plan of Salvation can only be valid if there is something within a temporal homosexual relationship that would block an eternal opposite-sex marriage. The only explanation for this is if there were something inherently disordered and sinful with any homosexual relationship, even a committed, legally sanctioned, faithful, and monogamous relationship. While most faiths would depend on the word of scripture or natural law to determine sinfulness, the LDS faith relies on the word of living prophets to declare the will of God to its adherents. I will deal with that argument in the next post.

Wayne Schow, Sexual Morality Revisited, DIALOGUE, Fall 2004, at 114, 121.

Total Pwnage

2009-03-23T09:38:00.000-06:00

I previously talked about Dinesh D'Souza's horrible America-hating book. I was unaware until recently that he got the drubbing he so richly deserved:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Dinesh D'Souza

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Political Humor

Rap Battle
NASA Name Contest

Friday music post: William Tell Overture

2009-03-20T09:15:00.000-06:00

In honor of last week's Salt Lake Men's Choir performance:

Strauss v. Horton, part V: Odyssey edition

2009-03-19T09:01:00.000-06:00

O fly the dreadful sight! expand thy sails,
Ply the strong oar, and catch the nimble gales;
Here Scylla bellows from the dire abodes,
Tremendous pest, abhorr'd by man and gods!
Hideous her voice, and with less terrors roar
The whelps of lions in the midnight hour.
Twelve feet, deform'd and foul, the fiend dispreads;
Six horrid necks she rears, and six terrific heads;
Her jaws grin dreadful with three rows of teeth;
Jaggy they stand, the gaping den of death;
Her parts obscene the raging billows hide;
Her bosom terribly o'erlooks the tide.
When stung with hunger she embroils the flood,
The sea-dog and the dolphin are her food;
She makes the huge leviathan her prey,
And all the monsters of the watery way;
The swiftest racer of the azure plain
Here fills her sails, and spreads her oars in vain;
Fell Scylla rises, in her fury roars,
At once six mouths expands, at once six men devours.

Close by, a rock of less enormous height
Breaks the wild waves, and forms a dangerous strait;
Full on its crown a fig's green branches rise,
And shoot a leafy forest to the skies;
Beneath, Charybdis holds her boisterous reign
'Midst roaring whirlpools, and absorbs the main;
Thrice in her gulfs the boiling seas subside,
Thrice in dire thunders she refunds the tide.
Oh, if thy vessel plough the direful waves,
When seas retreating roar within her caves,
Ye perish all! though he who rules the main
Lends his strong aid, his aid he lends in vain.
Ah, shun the horrid gulf! by Scylla fly.
'Tis better six to lose, than all to die.'

—The Odyssey, Book XII

OK, I've watched the oral argument, and it would appear as though the California Supreme Court's decision will come down to one fundamental question: is there a principled distinction between Proposition 8 and an amendment that would overturn suspect class status? While the media tend to simplify court decision into winners and losers, appellate opinions are about creating doctrine for lower courts to follow. Therefore, the court has to look beyond the parties in this case to the potential implications that the rule they lay down will have on future cases. The court is stuck between Scylla and Charybdis in this case; no solution will be clean or without bad consequences. Either the court overturns the will of the people and sacrifice judicial capital by being (rightly?) perceived as unelected tyrants, or they open the door to stripping equal protection out of the California Constitution altogether. At this point, the court just has to take a long look at what option is the least bad.

I have mentioned previously that protecting suspect classes from discrimination is a fundamental structure of a republican form of government. This differs from fundamental rights analysis because restrictions on fundamental rights, at least in theory, applies to everyone. The inherent protection of someone's self-interest does not apply when the majority can target a minority group for differential treatment. Heightened scrutiny is needed to make sure that minorities are not denied access to the political process. Now, whether you agree that sexual orientation should be a suspect class or not, current California law says that it is. If 50%+1 voters can overturn suspect class status, the thing that is meant to provide extra protections to historically politically disfavored minority groups, then the entire concept of suspect class status is illusory.

This is relevant because while declaring Proposition 8 valid would not strike down suspect class status in and of itself, it would be hard, given the court's analysis in the Marriage Cases to draw a doctrinal distinction between Proposition 8 a proposition that would overturn suspect class status entirely. The court said in the Marriage Cases that sexual orientation is a suspect class and that marriage is a fundamental right. A rule saying that an initiative amendment can remove a fundamental right from a suspect class, but cannot remove suspect class entirely would be protection in form but without substance, and it is difficult to imagine that the court could maintain any honest distinction.

On the other hand, the whole purpose of the structure of the California Constitution is that it was meant to be responsive to the will of the people. The constitution was set up during a time when railroads and other large corporations ruled state politics; the initiative process was meant to counterbalance against corporate and elite control of government. Also, given the countermajoritarian nature of the judiciary, it must tread lightly when overturning legislative acts. This goes doubly for direct initiatives and triply when those initiatives claim to alter the constitution that the court is interpreting. Even if one has a cynical view of the intentions of the court, it must still use its judicial capital wisely to ensure that it retains moral authority, the currency by which its decisions are enforced by the other branches.

So what is the Court to do? I can see only one way out, a way the court alluded to earlier: read Proposition 8 and the equal protection clause together, and declare civil marriage unconstitutional. The court allowed for this in the Marriage Cases by saying that the constitution would be satisfied "by extending to the previously excluded class the treatment or benefit that the statute affords to the included class, or alternatively . . . by withholding the benefit equally from both the previously included class and the excluded class." Proposition 8 says that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," but does not mandate that a legal union between a man and woman must be marriage. Therefore, the court could read the case and Prop 8 consistently by declaring that there is no such thing as civil marriage in California. I previously only thought of this solution as a clever way of teaching people a lesson about careful drafting, but I think in this case it is a viable solution. The court allows the amendment to stand by interpreting it as removing a possible remedy rather than as discriminating against a suspect class. The Court avoids overturning the amendment while simultaneously avoiding setting a precedent that would destroy equal protection jurisprudence. No one will really be happy at the outcome, but it might be the least bad solution.

This will haunt your dreams...

2009-03-18T09:34:00.000-06:00

Click here, but don't say I didn't warn you.

More sexy people here.

LDS Doctrine and Same-Sex Couples, part 4: Chastity and Eternal Marriage

2009-03-17T09:54:00.001-06:00

Part four of the continuing series... click for part 1, part 2, and part 3.

Another argument against homosexual relationships is based on the principle of chastity. A pamphlet produced by the Church, True to the Faith, explains the law of chastity thusly: "You must not have any sexual relations before you are legally married. When you are married, you must be completely faithful to your husband or wife."

The principle is construed into an argument against same-sex marriage like so: Sex outside of marriage is immoral, and marriage is only between a man and a woman, so homosexual sex is against the law of chastity. However, the argument is circular; homosexual sex is immoral because marriage is between a man and a woman, and marriage is between a man and a woman because same-sex relations are immoral.

One can argue that chastity encompasses more than just a prohibition on extramarital sexual relations, but homosexual relations of any sort. However, the authority supporting this conclusion is not found within the law of chastity itself, but rather from the doctrine of eternal marriage.

The Latter-day Saint view of chastity is based on the idea that sexual activity is a dimension of the power of God given to humans, and so misuse of this power is blasphemy. The basis for this idea is the belief in eternal marriage. Doctrine and Covenants section 132 explains: "[I]f a man marry a wife by my word . . . , it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection . . . and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths . . . . Then shall they be gods . . . , and the angels are subject unto them."

The doctrine of eternal marriage is a dilemma for gay and lesbian Latter-day Saints. As Armand Mauss explains, "Marriage between the sexes, and the expectation of procreation here and hereafter, seem to lie at the very foundation of the doctrinal complex called the 'Plan of Salvation.'"¹ There are three options for a gay or lesbian saint, none of which conforms to the ideal standard laid out in LDS doctrine: choose to marry a person of the opposite sex, choose to stay celibate, or enter into a relationship with a same-sex partner. I will look at these options in turn.

Until recently, the option favored by the Church was for gay and lesbian saints to sublimate their natural urges and marry someone of the opposite sex. The logic of this position was based on the idea that there was no such thing as inborn or ingrained homosexuality. President Spencer W. Kimball was an advocate of this practice, encouraging homosexuals to "force [themselves] to return to normal pursuits and interests and actions and friendships with the opposite sex."² This position was reinforced by the idea that sexual gratification was base and therefore not essential to a good marriage and the belief that only through marriage can men and women achieve eternal life.

This approach has been less than successful, however. A high percentage of mixed-orientation relationships fail, with disastrous consequences for both partners and the children involved. The homosexual partner in these relationships finds that the homosexual urges that the marriage was supposed to "cure" do not go away, and so that partner falls into despair. This despair often leads to risky and self-destructive behaviors like unsafe extramarital sexual practices, drug use, and even attempted suicide. Meanwhile, the straight partner is disappointed by the gay partner’s lack of desire for sexual intimacy, and worries that this condition is somehow his or her fault for not being attractive enough. Because of the lack of success in mixed-orientation marriages, they are no longer promoted as a general rule. President Gordon B. Hinckley stated the Church’s policy: "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices . . . ."³

The new preferred policy among Church leaders for dealing with homosexuals is celibacy. President Hinckley’s comments illustrate this new approach:

Our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married.⁴

This approach certainly has support from the early Christian tradition, which viewed sexual urges as another bodily desire to be overcome, and championed celibacy as a way of becoming closer to God. However, this tradition does not square with LDS doctrine regarding celibacy. Early Church revelations are hostile and dismissive of celibacy as a "holy" choice: "[W]hoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation . . . ." (D&C 49:15-17). Bruce R. McConkie reiterates the traditional LDS view, saying that "[m]any who practice celibacy do so out of an excessive religious devotion . . . . In reality they are forsaking some of the most important purposes of their creation for a man-made, uninspired system . . . . [T]he principle of not marrying is not the doctrine of the Church . . . ."⁵

Marriage is viewed not only as a necessary stamp on a saint’s passport required for entry into the Celestial Kingdom, it also is viewed as a key to happiness and spiritual progression in this life. The General Handbook of Instructions states that "[m]arried couples also should understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife." Therefore, while current LDS doctrine allows for the hope of marriage in the next life in exigent circumstances, those who are not married in this life forfeit the extra happiness and spiritual growth that such a relationship can give in this life.

Single saints are also at a disadvantage within the Church community. The fact that there is no tradition of celibacy in the Church creates the implicit perception among other members of the congregation of single saints' spiritual deficiency. The unmarried Latter-day Saints (especially those beyond college-age years) often feel like they exist in a doctrinal limbo, and going to meetings becomes progressively harder as these saints are treated with pity or suspicion, or perhaps both. They are constantly asked "why aren’t you dating anyone" by well meaning saints hoping to show support, yet who serve as an unneeded reminder of something painful to many.

Hostility toward celibacy as an alternative lifestyle, along with the belief that a just God will allow us opportunities that we were denied in this life and that things will work themselves out in the eternities creates doctrinal space for same-sex marriage as a viable alternative to celibacy in this life. The Church’s policy toward widows is instructive. A woman, past her childbearing years, whose husband has died is not required nor encouraged to remain celibate for the rest of her life. She may remarry, and this is counted as a good thing even though the marriage itself is for this life only and not an eternal marriage. The church encourages this behavior because it holds that marriage, even for this life, even without the chance of offspring, is still good.

The same logic could extend to same-sex couples. Even though the union is not procreative, and even though the union is not eternal, it would still be a chance for the persons involved to enter into a mutually strengthening relationship where there is a unique opportunity to feel love and happiness. If it is true that homosexuality is a condition that will only exist in this life and that there is an opportunity for an opposite-sex marriage in the hereafter, then there is no eternal difference between a temporal same-sex marriage and celibacy. There would be a temporal difference, but it seems to be a positive difference rather than a negative difference.

Armand Mauss, On “Defense of Marriage”: A Reply to Quinn, DIALOGUE, Fall 2000, at 53, 57.
SPENCER W. KIMBALL, THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS 86 (1969)
Gordon B. Hinckley, Reverence and Morality, ENSIGN, May 1987, at 47.
Gordon B. Hinckley, Why We Do Some of the Things We Do, ENSIGN, Nov. 1999, at 52.
BRUCE R. MCCONKIE, MORMON DOCTRINE 119–20 (2d ed., 1966).

Back to blogging

2009-03-16T09:41:00.001-06:00

After a week's break and a very successful choir concert, I'm back in the saddle again. I hope you didn't miss me too badly.

So, The latest hubbub around these parts is Big Love's decision to include part of the LDS Temple endowment ceremony on yesterday's episode. Mind you, no one had seen the episode, but that didn't stop the outrage from flowing thick and fast. I was skeptical that this would really end up being that big of a deal—when Big Love has portrayed anything about Mormonism it has been fairly accurate and not with a tone of mockery.

Having watched the episode last night, my reaction is . . . meh. It probably wasn't necessary. I understand that the producers wanted to portray her emotions and what she was giving up by being excommunicated. And I did think it was tasteful, although the disembowelment thing was kind of silly and the filter that was on the camera turned the green into a strange shade of teal. They did do a great job of allowing the viewer to feel Barb's feeling about the "presence of the Lord" during the scene. But overall, it did kind of seem salacious. It kind of felt shoe-horned into the plot.

More importantly, the goofs were distracting—Barb wasn't going to "take out her endowment," she did that a long time ago. She was going through the endowment. The temple worker wouldn't have kicked them out unless the temple was closing. And whose temple recommend did she use? We aren't talking about a guest pass at Gold's Gym. Those kinds of things annoyed me. Maybe my priorities are skewed, but if you're going to go through all the trouble of putting together a temple scene and tweaking the LDS, at least get the details right.

UPDATE: Having talked to some friends, I think it would be productive to discuss the question of what the line of propriety is for an outside observer to a faith tradition to discuss or display that faith tradition's sacred rites, images, etc. Look for that post next Thursday.

Quick Announcement and a challenge

2009-03-10T23:24:00.002-06:00

Still taking the week off, but if any of you are in the Salt Lake City area on Saturday, consider coming to the following concert:

What: Salt Lake Men's Choir Concert
When: Saturday, March 14, 2009, at 7:30 pm
Where: Rowland Hall St. Mark's Middle School, 970 East 800 South, Salt Lake City
Price: $15

And while I'm at it, a challenge for all my lawyer friends who are interested in the Prop 8 case: can you craft a rule that would affirm Prop 8 while at the same time striking down as a revision an initiative that would overturn the designation of a suspect class? Give it your best shot in the comments. I'll use your ideas in next week's post on Prop 8.

Gone fishin'

2009-03-09T22:59:00.002-06:00

So, I've been super busy this last week and I haven't had enough time to sit down and write for a while. So, many apologies, but I'm taking the week off of blogging. I promise I'll be back next week for my thoughts on the Prop 8 cases and further musings on same-sex marriage and the LDS church. Til then...

Friday music post: Go or go ahead

2009-03-06T09:45:00.000-07:00

Just a beautiful and soulful song. Enjoy.

Watch this space

2009-03-04T22:08:00.003-07:00

I'll post my thoughts on Strauss v. Horton as soon as the oral argument is done. Until then...

UPDATE: I can't get the feed to stream. I'll have to watch it later when there's more bandwidth.

Strauss v. Horton update: Oral Argument tomorrow

2009-03-04T09:42:00.000-07:00

Oral Argument in the Prop 8 cases will be held tomorrow at 9:00 to 12:00 (PST) tomorrow. For viewing options, see this link. I will have a full report on the case next Tuesday. Until then, review my previous posts on Strauss v. Horton here, here, here, and here. I talk more about the constitutional questions involved here, here, here, and here.

LDS Doctrine and Same-Sex Couples, part 3: The Scriptures

2009-03-03T09:29:00.000-07:00

Part three of the continuing series... click for part 1 and part 2.

Another basis for asserting that homosexual relationships are condemned by God is an appeal to scriptural authority. While there are no explicit mentions of homosexuality in the Restoration era scripture, Mormons often borrow the argument made by other Christians that homosexuality is condemned in the Mosaic Law in Leviticus, condemned by implication in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and forbidden by Paul in his letters to the Romans and Corinthians. I will examine these scriptures one at a time, and attempt to show why these passages are a shaky foundation for the doctrine against homosexuality.

Mosaic law

The most explicit condemnation of homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” At first glance, the passage seems clear—any sort of homosexual conduct is disallowed. And that interpretation would be correct, if we still followed the Law of Moses. The law has been fulfilled, however, by the coming of Christ, and the Mosaic Law is only binding if it reflects the purposes of the Higher Law. So, to determine whether the directive in Leviticus 18:22 is binding, we must examine the purpose of the prohibition.

Leviticus chapters 17–26 is referred to by scholars as the holiness code, and it is generally understood to contain injunctions given to avoid the pagan rituals of the Canaanites. The heading of his particular section acknowledges this:

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. (Lev. 18:3-4)

Furthermore, the particular language used in the original Hebrew also suggests that the prohibition against homosexual relations is of ritual, rather than moral, importance. The word abomination is translated from the Hebrew to’eba, ritual impurity, which is contrasted with zimah, wickedness (used in the condemnation of adultery).¹

This makes sense when looking at the particular rituals of the Canaanites. Ritual prostitution of both the homosexual and heterosexual variety was part of Canaanite worship, along with eating goats boiled in their mother’s milk, incestuous relationships, and dedicating children to Molech. In fact, the text itself refers to the things listed as the “customs” of the people in the land before the Israelites. (Lev. 18:30)

Thus, there is a real possibility that the injunction in Leviticus was meant to keep Israelites pure from pagan rituals. As such, it is not a compelling statement of the general doctrine of the gospel, especially since the Mosaic Law has been transcended by the Higher Law.

Sodom and Gomorrah

The Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah has also classically been cited as authority for God’s disapproval of homosexuality. The account tells of Lot, the nephew of Abraham, who was a resident of Sodom. One night, holy men came to his house. The account proceeds as follows:

[T]he men of Sodom, compassed the house . . . . And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)

Lot, his guests, and his family escaped the men of Sodom, and God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of the wickedness of their inhabitants.

This story has a long history of being associated with homosexual conduct. Blackstone, in the Commentaries, referred to homosexual conduct as “a crime not fit to be named” and reasoned that it was a crime against God because of “the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven.”² In fact, homosexual conduct has come to be known as “sodomy,” after the name of this story.

But does a careful reading of the text support such a conclusion? The men in Sodom were not asking to “know” Lot’s guests as part of a committed relationship, or even a consensual one. Rather, the relationship requested was one of attacker and victim. The most obvious reading of this text is that God is displeased with rape, be it of men or women. Reading the story of Sodom as an anti-homosexual morality tale is akin to reading a story about the rape of a woman as a prohibition against heterosexual sex.

The Bible itself does not support the conclusion that Sodom’s sin was homosexuality. Ezekiel explicitly lists the reasons why Sodom was destroyed: “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49) This interpretation of the sin of Sodom echoes the conclusion of many scholars who understand the sin of Sodom to be a lack of caring for strangers in their gates. The primacy of hospitality in desert cultures is represented by Lot’s willingness to sacrifice his daughters to protect his guests. Like the previous passage, the story of Sodom does not conclusively prove God’s displeasure with homosexual conduct.

Paul’s Letters

Paul’s letters to the Romans and Corinthians are also employed as evidence of God’s displeasure with homosexuals. Paul, in a passage condemning bringing lawsuits between believers to the secular authorities, condemns fraud and wrongdoing, declaring that “the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God[.] Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-10)

Other translations of the Bible replace the word “effeminate” with “male prostitute,” and the annotations of the LDS versions of the New Testament suggests the translation of “catamite,” a boy kept as a lover by men of high social standing. The listing of one of these terms along with the other likely refers to the passive and active partners in a pederastic relationship. Much like the previous passages, condemnation of prostitution and child exploitation is hardly a conclusive condemnation of any homosexual relationship.

Also relevant is Paul’s understanding of homosexuality. Paul speaks of idolaters in Romans, stating that because humans did not acknowledge God,

God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Rom. 1:26-27)

Paul’s viewpoint, therefore, is that homosexuality is a consequence of idolatry. This is consistent with the Jewish worldview represented in the Old Testament. Burning with lust, a male body would work as well as a female body to satisfy carnal desires. The person Paul is condemning is not one who is primarily attracted to the other sex, but rather is overwhelmed in lust. Paul’s characterization of homosexuality bears little resemblance to the same-sex relationships that seek legitimacy today.

Also, as Latter-day Saints and believers in continuing revelation, ancient scripture is not the final word in doctrinal authority. The canon is open; practices, policies, and even our understanding of doctrine change as our understanding deepens and God reveals his will more fully to us. The point of having living prophets is to understand God’s will in the context of today’s society. Scriptural authority, therefore, is problematic basis from which to argue that homosexuality is incompatible with the gospel.

See Phyllis A. Bird, The Bible in Christian Ethical Deliberation Concerning Homosexuality: Old Testament Contributions, in HOMOSEXUALITY, SCIENCE, AND THE “PLAIN SENSE” OF SCRIPTURE 142, 150 (David L. Balch, ed. 2000).
WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, 4 Commentaries *215–16.

Aware of all internet traditions, continued...

2009-03-02T09:22:00.001-07:00

Just in case you don't feel like working today, here's a list of 99 things you should have already seen on the Internet. I can't believe they missed this one:

Friday music post: Stormy Weather

2009-02-27T09:29:00.000-07:00

Those of you who listen to NPR will recognize this song as the song they play when the stock market takes a tumble. They've been playing it a lot lately...

(And yes, I know this is Lena Horne's song. I happen to like this version better. Deal.)

Beginning of the end for DOMA?

2009-02-26T09:12:00.000-07:00

In the last month or so, the Ninth Circuit has twice questioned the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. DOMA has two provisions: first, it states that states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Second, DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. It specifically provides:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

1 U.S.C. § 7. The opinions deal with the second provision, and were written by two judges at opposite ends of the political spectrum: Chief Judge Kozinski, a respected conservative, and Judge Reinhardt, known as the most liberal judge on the Ninth Circuit.

Both of these cases arose out of the judges' roles as arbitrators for the Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution program. Employees of the U.S. Courts who married a person of the same sex in California were denied health benefits for their spouse by the federal courts. The employees contended that the denial of coverage violated the court's Equal Employment Opportunity rules, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, as well as violating the Equal Protection provisions of the U.S. Consitution.

Kozinski's opinion avoided the Constitutional question by ruling that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (5 U.S.C. § 8903) did not prohibit the government from giving extra coverage beyond what was mandate in the act. However, he noted that the Consitutionality of DOMA was doubtful at best. Kozinski noted that excluding same-sex spouses from the definition of marriages for federal purposes seemed to be based solely on expressing moral disapproval rather than on a legitimate governmental interest, and may be an impermissible attempt by the state to punish private sexual behavior.

Judge Reinhardt's opinion disagreed with Kozinski on his reading of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act. He held that because the statute provides that "The Office of Personnel Management may contract for or approve the following health benefits plans," it clearly excludes the authority to contract for plans outside of those offered in the statute. He therefore looked at the Constitutionality of DOMA and found it wanting.

Reinhardt looked at the three governmental interests put forward by the legislative history of the Act: defending the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions or morality; and preserving scarce governmental resources. He notes that the first objective is irrelevant because the couple is already married under state law. The second justification does not work because the means by which DOMA encourages traditional morality is by punishing same-sex couples that exercise their rights under state law, and because traditional notions of morality, without more, is not enough to sustain a law as having a legitimate governmental interest. The third proffered interest also fails, as the amount of money saved is so insignificant as to be pretextual. Reinhardt therefore rules DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to federal health benefits for Ninth Circuit employees.

Neither one of these rulings is precedential, but it is interesting to note that federal judges are starting to question DOMA. The more states provide same-sex couples with rights under the law, the more the federal government's refusal to recognize those rights will appear backward and unjust to the general public. Whether by judicial ruling or by statutory repeal, DOMA's definition of marriage is on its last legs.

Oscar Cocktails

2009-02-25T09:18:00.000-07:00

So we're finally done with the Academy Awards again, and that means I'm through volunteering for Oscar Night for another year. For those of you who don't know, the Academy sanctions official viewing parties in 52 cities across the nation to raise money for charity. Salt Lake City's Oscar Night is put on by the Utah AIDS Foundation.

Anyway, as part of the festivities, I put together* three special cocktails to celebrate. Unfortunately, due to costs, we were never able to use these recipes, so I thought I'd share them with my readers:

Mumbai Millionaire

a taste of the high life in the subcontinent.

In a champagne flute, mix 1 oz vodka and 0.5 oz mango juice. fill up with champagne.

The Recruiter

Goes down so smooth, you won't figure out what you just got into until you wake up tomorrow morning.

Fill a highball glass with ice. Add 3 oz. Jack Daniels, 1.5 oz Tuaca (vanilla liqueur), 0.75 oz triple sec. Fill up the glass with Coke.

The Joker

It won't kill you, but it will make you... stranger.

Fill a cocktail shaker with ice. pour 0.5 oz of dry vermouth to the ice, slosh around to coat the ice, and drain the excess. Add 3 oz of gin and .5 oz of absinthe to the shaker, shake and pour into martini glass. Float 0.5 oz of Grand Marnier and garnish with a slice of blood orange.

* By "put together" I don't mean "created," I mean "tweaked a recipe a little and gave it a different name."

LDS Doctrine and Same-Sex Couples, part 2: Natural Law

2009-02-24T09:38:00.000-07:00

The first objection that a member of the Church might have against homosexual relationships is that it is “just wrong.” A popular version of this “argument” is that “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” While this argument may be dismissed as crude and conclusory, it deserves a serious examination. If right and wrong can be determined by the natural order of things, and sex desire is a natural product of the biological imperative of reproduction, then why would a non-procreative sex act between two members of the same sex be moral?

Natural lawyers therefore make the argument for the immorality of homosexual sex. Law professor Teresa Stanton Collett observes that

To many, acts of anal intercourse, fellatio, or cunnilingus are unnatural and degrading. Opponents argue that these acts treat the human body as a mere instrument for selfish pleasure and fail to express any meaningful union of persons. To affirm relationships involving such acts would not promote good conduct, but instead would falsely suggest an equality of these acts with penile-vaginal intercourse, the distinctive activity of heterosexual marriage.¹

Likewise, Natural Law scholar John Finnis argues for the distinctive nature of penile/vaginal intercourse: "The union of the reproductive organs of husband and wife really unites them biologically (and their biological reality is part of, not merely an instrument of, their personal reality); reproduction is one function and so, in respect of that function, the spouses are indeed one reality . . . ."²

This argument has appeal to members of the Church, given its resemblance to the Proclamation on the Family’s statements that "[g]ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose," and "[m]arriage between man and woman is essential to [God’s] eternal plan." However, There are many problems with this formulation, from both a logical perspective and for Mormons especially. First, the logic of the natural law position relies on the idea that homosexuality is not "natural." This is a position that is belied by observations of biologists who note homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom.³ Also, the argument necessarily concludes that there is one “right” way to act, or even to exist, and all variation is inherently sinful. Simple observation of human behavior and the variety found therein leads one to conclude that there are many decisions that are morally neutral.

Natural law is also a difficult fit with LDS theology. First, the argument posits that morality can be deduced by observing nature or using natural reason. This is problematic for Latter-day Saints, who tend to take a dim view of nature, viewing "the natural man [as] an enemy to God . . . ." (Mosiah 3:19) Natural law theology also relies on Platonic Idealism, something that LDS theology rejects in favor of materialism. Damon Linker, a Catholic scholar and former visiting professor at Brigham Young University, explains that the LDS concept of God contradicts the very foundations of natural law theology:

Unlike the God of Catholics and Protestants—who is usually portrayed as the transcendent, all-powerful, all-good, and all-wise creator of the temporal universe out of nothingness—Smith’s God is a finite being who evolved into his present state of divinity from a condition very much like our own and then merely "organized" preexisting matter in order to form the world . . . . Mormonism tacitly denies that the natural world possesses any intrinsic or God-given moral purpose. Everything we know—or could ever know—about right and wrong comes entirely from divine commands communicated to humanity by prophets.⁴

The other problem with adopting the natural law position as a Latter-day Saint is the argument’s overinclusiveness. Not only are homosexual acts sinful according to natural law, so are any non-procreative heterosexual acts, even within marriage. Recent LDS pronouncements have not condemned birth control or non-procreative sex acts, referring to this question as a matter between husband and wife. The Church has also recognized a purpose in sexual relations within marriage beyond that of procreation, namely "to express love for one another—to bind husband and wife together in loyalty, fidelity, consideration, and common purpose."⁵ Natural Law theology is therefore a problematic basis for LDS arguments against homosexuality.

Teresa Stanton Collett, Should Marriage Be Privileged? The State’s Interest in Childbearing Unions, in SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: THE MORAL AND LEGAL DEBATE 163, 168. (Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum, eds., 2004).
John Finnis, Law, Morality, and "Sexual Orientation", 69 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1049, 1066 (1994).
BRUCE BAGEMIHL, BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE: ANIMAL HOMOSEXUALITY AND BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 12 (1999) (recounting scientific observations of homosexual behavior in over 450 animal species).
Damon Linker, The Big Test, NEW REPUBLIC, Jan. 1, 2007, at 18, 19–20.
7 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, TRUE TO THE FAITH, 26 (2004).

I can haz peace, land and bread?

2009-02-23T09:27:00.000-07:00

Lolcats goes Marxist-Leninist:

We sleep with vigor. Content with the knowledge that Lenin’s body shall never decay...

Have strength, my little cabbage. By the mercy of NKVD Order No. 00447, we have been chosen for Resettlement.
We will show the tin mines of Kolyma the true power of the proletariat.

Drat, thwarted so close to freedom’s sweet caress… I dreamed for but a taste of the decadent west, and now my eulogy is sung by guard dogs and alarm bells.

More here.

Friday music post: Uninvited

2009-02-20T09:02:00.000-07:00

Yeah, it's her. So what? This song is pretty amazing all the same:

So...

2009-02-19T09:20:00.002-07:00

I was planning on writing about some 9th Circuit rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act last night, but I had to write an emergency motion to dismiss (work, it always takes away from the important things in life...). Anyway, if you haven't already, you should really click on yesterday's KTVX link (reposted here for your convenience) and watch the Chris Buttars video. It's AMAZING...

"They're the meanest buggers I have ever seen."

2009-02-18T09:28:00.002-07:00

Utah State Senator Chris Buttars sounds off about the evil ghey. Guess he doesn't like pumpkin bread.

LDS Doctrine and Same-Sex Couples, part 1: Introduction

2009-02-17T09:03:00.001-07:00

OK boys and girls, I'm starting a new 6-part series on Tuesdays. If you have no interest in religious issues, don't worry—it's only one day a week.

The aftermath of California’s passage of Proposition 8 has drawn the battle lines between the LDS church and the gay community. The last few months have been rough for those of us who find themselves in the intersection of these two worlds. Sometimes it is hard to believe that a reconciliation could be possible. While the bad feelings on both sides ensure that reconciliation will not happen any time soon, some would argue that a reconciliation is impossible because of LDS doctrine itself. In the following posts, I will address that issue, and argue that the LDS doctrine does not preclude the possibility of a future change of official policy regarding same-sex relationships.

Opponents of Church acceptance of homosexuality generally bring five basic arguments into play: homosexuality is “just wrong,” the scriptures condemn homosexuality; homosexual relationships violate the law of chastity; homosexual relationships are incompatible with the plan of salvation; and the brethren have not recognized and have actively campaigned against homosexual relationships. The first three arguments are weak from an LDS standpoint, but the latter two arguments engage the very foundations of Church doctrine. Plumbing the depths of these latter two arguments, while leading to no definitive answers about a place for homosexuals in the Church, exposes some play in the joints that would allow accommodation of committed same-sex couples within the LDS community if the Church were inclined to do so.

Oh, so that's why...

2009-02-16T09:42:00.000-07:00

Here's an internet personality test: for each item below, answer the following question: does it make you feel

a) revolted
b) appalled
c) fascinated
d) hungry
e) all of the above

Sloppy Joe On A Krispy Kreme

Bob Evans Sausage Gravy Machine

Heart Attack Sandwich—Chicken fried steak, chicken-fried bacon, a country sausage, a fried egg, a fried green tomato topped with cheddar cheese and sandwiched between buns toasted in bacon fat, all served with a gravy dipping sauce.

Corn dog pizza

If you answered anything but D or E to the above questions, you are probably 20 pounds lighter than I am. More food pr0n here.

Friday music post: Hope there's someone

2009-02-13T09:23:00.000-07:00

Fish in a barrel

2009-02-12T09:15:00.000-07:00

I wasn't going to post on this because I thought it was just too stupid to waste pixels on. However, the more I think about it, the more I think that maybe I'm missing something. Can anyone explain this?

A series of bills in the Legislature are setting a dangerous precedent for the legalization of same-sex marriage, presenters from the Sutherland Institute argued Thursday night.
"We are being urged today to surrender and redefine marriage," said LaVar Christensen. "If we are true to our heritage, we will not yield."

The bills are in question are collectively referred to as the Common Ground Initiative, and they include bills designed to protect gays and lesbians from housing and employment discrimination, to secure domestic partner benefits for state employees, to legally recognize a "joint support declaration" that would secure probate rights for unmarried domestic partners, and to clarify Amendment 3, which outlawed same-sex marriage for Utah in 2005, to allow for some of these benefits to comport with the Utah Constitution. If anyone can tell me what this has to do with same-sex marriage, I would much appreciate it.

I would love to take LeVar Christensen at face value when he says that he and his compatriots "have the utmost empathy and sincere compassion for all human beings," but doing so would require that I understand how these bills have anything to do with the marriage debate. Without that link, I would have to assume that he opposes the bills on their own terms, and that he and the Sutherland Institute support firing people or denying them housing because of their sexual orientation. If that's what he means, I wish he'd just say it.

Really?

2009-02-11T09:35:00.000-07:00

SNL gets the Michael Phelps flap exactly right (h/t to Sullivan):

Flaxen Cords

2009-02-10T09:39:00.000-07:00

At times during the Presidential campaign, I would trade videos of Ron Paul with a friend of mine. We would discuss how we found ourselves agreeing with his ideas, and actually being convinced by him. Then, just as we were about to be seduced, one of us would remind the other: "just remember that his ideas would wreck the economy."

This was easier for my friend and me to remember: we both took a lot of economics in college. Unfortunately, most of the media are a little more easily duped. There was a particular question asked time and time again in the presidential debates: because of the economic crisis, you obviously won't have money for all of your campaign agenda. What will you sacrifice?" This should have set any student of macroeconomics to yelling at the screen. Governments shouldn't spend less during recessions, they should spend more, as they are the only entity with enough market power to prop up demand and encourage consumer spending.

Since I am concerned that you, dear readers, do not fall into the trap of shoddy economic thinking, I want to introduce you to the seductive lie of Austrian economics and debunk it in a safe place before it does any more damage. To do that, I will enlist the help of a friend: Nobel-Prize winning economist Paul Krugman. Krugman indicts the idea "that slumps are the price we pay for booms, that the suffering the economy experiences during a recession is a necessary punishment for the excesses of the previous expansion."

The hangover theory is perversely seductive—not because it offers an easy way out, but because it doesn't. It turns the wiggles on our charts into a morality play, a tale of hubris and downfall. And it offers adherents the special pleasure of dispensing painful advice with a clear conscience, secure in the belief that they are not heartless but merely practicing tough love.
Powerful as these seductions may be, they must be resisted—for the hangover theory is disastrously wrongheaded. Recessions are not necessary consequences of booms. They can and should be fought, not with austerity but with liberality—with policies that encourage people to spend more, not less. Nor is this merely an academic argument: The hangover theory can do real harm. Liquidationist views played an important role in the spread of the Great Depression—with Austrian theorists such as Friedrich von Hayek and Joseph Schumpeter strenuously arguing, in the very depths of that depression, against any attempt to restore "sham" prosperity by expanding credit and the money supply. And these same views are doing their bit to inhibit recovery in the world's depressed economies at this very moment.

Krugman wrote this article over ten years ago in talking about the Asian recession, but it is every bit as relevant today as it was then. I strongly encourage you to read the whole article, but this takeaway quote is really food for thought:

One often hears that Japan is adrift because its politicians refuse to make hard choices, to take on vested interests. The truth is that the Japanese have been remarkably willing to make hard choices, such as raising taxes sharply in 1997. Indeed, they are in trouble partly because they insist on making hard choices, when what the economy really needs is to take the easy way out. The Great Depression happened largely because policy-makers imagined that austerity was the way to fight a recession; the not-so-great depression that has enveloped much of Asia has been worsened by the same instinct.

Tempest in a teapot

2009-02-09T09:30:00.000-07:00

Just a couple more pieces of evidence showing why Don't Ask, Don't Tell is outmoded:

And Don't forget:

Friday music post: Poupee de Cire, Poupee de Son

2009-02-06T09:11:00.000-07:00

After some research, I decided that this was the best version I could find on YouTube:

Fiat Lux

2009-02-05T09:42:00.000-07:00

These photos are just amazing:

My toothpaste has been detained

2009-02-04T09:18:00.000-07:00

So I went on a trip to Phoenix last weekend to take some time off of the cold, the haze, and the rest of Salt Lake. I had a great time, but on the way through security in Sky Harbor, I ran into a problem. I have always been good at getting through security quickly. I can get my shoes on and off quickly, I can empty my pockets and take off my belt without much effort, and of course, I'm a white male, which is probably the biggest factor. But since the last time I was on the airplane, the TSA has found something new to worry about: liquids.

The liquids policy has been in place for a while, and I knew about it—I just didn't think about it when I packed my carry-on bag. Luckily, I got through Salt Lake International's security without incident, so I was optimistic when I started through security in Sky Harbor. After the bag went through the x-ray machine, A screener asked me to open my bag. He rummaged around in my toiletries bag and started to lecture me about the liquids rule. I ended up having to sacrifice my toothpaste, my face scrub, and my shaving cream to the airplane gods. I guess it wasn't too bad; all of those items were over half-empty anyway, and they they didn't get what was in the side pocket on my toiletries bag.

But seriously, toothpaste? Really? And why is there this three-ounce limit? (Incidentally, the TSA rule says three fluid ounces by volume—but that didn't stop them from taking my toothpaste because it said its weight was more than three ounces.) I guess I'm not an expert on these things, but this kind of effort doesn't seem that it makes people safer. I don't think it makes people feel safer, either, which is the point of most of our security. I think Saturday Night Live says it better than I can (click the picture for the video):

I just hope that my toothpaste doesn't end up in GTMO or something. Good luck little buddy.

Nate fails at life

2009-02-03T09:41:00.000-07:00

I was out of town all last week and haven't caught up on my blogging. I promise I'll do better tomorrow. Until then, deal.

Fighting the battle of who could care less

2009-02-02T09:59:00.000-07:00

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! 23-year-old college student takes a bong hit.

The USOC is clutching its pearls:

"Michael is a role model, and he is well aware of the responsibilities and accountability that come with setting a positive example for others, particularly young people," the USOC said in a statement. "In this instance, regrettably, he failed to fulfill those responsibilities."

And Phelps' quote is appropriately groveling and self-flagellating to the tens of people who are shocked and appalled by a 20-something smoking pot:

"I engaged in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment," Phelps said in the statement released by one of his agents. "I'm 23 years old and despite the successes I've had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again."

Frankly, I want Michael Phelps to apologize to all of us who think that apologies like that just feed the public perception that he did something that anyone at all should care about. I mean, our last three presidents have admitted to smoking pot. Can't we just stop the war against cannabis yet? Seriously, I don't care to smoke it, but t seems like such a waste of resources...

Friday music post: Wild Is the Wind

2009-01-30T09:12:00.001-07:00

Sorry about the video on this, but the audio more than makes up for it. Enjoy.

Flying the friendly skies

2009-01-29T09:17:00.000-07:00

You know, I guess I think I've always been a professional critic, you know, or some sort of professional appreciator or something. And I just wanted to, you know, do something new, put something new out into the world, you know, kind of really put my money where my mouth is.

This line from High Fidelity has always kind of bothered me. It seems to draw a line between evaluation and creation, and implies that ironic detachment is a hindrance to true artistic expression. I don't think that's true, and here is a letter that shows that biting criticism can, in itself rise to the level of art. A snippet:

Imagine being a twelve year old boy Richard. Now imagine it’s Christmas morning and you’re sat their with your final present to open. It’s a big one, and you know what it is. It’s that Goodmans stereo you picked out the catalogue and wrote to Santa about.
Only you open the present and it’s not in there. It’s your hamster Richard. It’s your hamster in the box and it’s not breathing. That’s how I felt when I peeled back the foil and saw this:
Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking it’s more of that Baaji custard. I admit I thought the same too, but no. It’s mustard Richard. MUSTARD. More mustard than any man could consume in a month. On the left we have a piece of broccoli and some peppers in a brown glue-like oil and on the right the chef had prepared some mashed potato. The potato masher had obviously broken and so it was decided the next best thing would be to pass the potatoes through the digestive tract of a bird.
Once it was regurgitated it was clearly then blended and mixed with a bit of mustard. Everybody likes a bit of mustard Richard.
By now I was actually starting to feel a little hypoglycaemic. I needed a sugar hit. Luckily there was a small cookie provided. It had caught my eye earlier due to it’s baffling presentation:
It appears to be in an evidence bag from the scene of a crime. A CRIME AGAINST BLOODY COOKING. Either that or some sort of back-street underground cookie, purchased off a gun-toting maniac high on his own supply of yeast. You certainly wouldn’t want to be caught carrying one of these through customs. Imagine biting into a piece of brass Richard. That would be softer on the teeth than the specimen above.

Notes from an unrepentant grammar nazi, redux

2009-01-28T09:11:00.002-07:00

Clark's comment on Monday's post made me think I should clarify what I mean when I say I am a grammar nazi. I am a stickler when it comes to proper punctuation. I have special shortcut keys programmed into my computer to keep minute and second symbols from turning into inverted commas in Microsoft Word. I know that ¶ is called a pilcrow. I only use one space after a period because that's what the Chicago Manual of style says. I always use the subjunctive tense properly. I even use semicolons on a regular basis. So, yeah. you could say I am a grammar nazi (nb: this does not mean that you need to start pointing out my typos—I don't claim to be a good typist or a good writer of HTML code). But there are two grammar "rules" that I refuse to follow, and I will openly mock anyone who tries to tell me that they are rules: the split infinitives rule and the rule against preposition stranding. Let's take these in order.

As a review, an infinitive is the plain form of a verb, and it is invariably preceded by to—to be, to do, to live, to die, are all infinitives. These exist in other languages, too, except in most other languages infinitives are one word rather than two. Well, someone got it in his head one day that since infinitives are not split in Latin (not a surprise, since they are one word), they should not be split in English as well. This rule would declare that the Star Trek motto, "to boldly go where no one has gone before," is improper English, preferring "to go boldly where no one has gone before." Strict compliance with this rule leads to situations where it is necessary to play a verbal game of Twister to salvage the meaning of your sentence. For instance, try to recast this sentence without losing the meaning: We expect our output to more than double in a year. I like Bill Bryson's take on it myself:

I can think of two very good reasons for not splitting an infinitive. (1) Because you feel that the rules of English ought to conform to the grammatical precepts of a language that died a thousand years ago. (2) Because you wish to cling to a pointless affectation of usage that is without the support of any recognized authority of the last 200 years, even at the cost of composing sentences that are ambiguous, inelegant, and patently contorted.*

The second "rule" I openly mock is the rule against preposition stranding, or ending sentences with prepositions. Again, this convention comes from Latin; again, this rule bears no relationship with the way English is used; and again, following the rule strictly will lead to verbal Twister (see, e.g., What did you do that for?). To quote Churchill, this is errant nonsense up with which I will not put.

In the end, grammar and punctuation are all about communicating ideas effectively and artfully. There are no rules of grammar, only conventions that you can use to be understood by your audience. If I am called pedantic, at least let me be called pedantic in service of functional language.

* Bill Bryson, The Mother Tongue 144 (1990).

Economics, explained

2009-01-27T09:50:00.000-07:00

This is a lot better explanation than I got in my ECON 100 class. Enjoy, and prepare yourself for the pop quiz:

Notes from an unrepentant grammar nazi

2009-01-26T09:32:00.001-07:00

Quotation marks are wonderfully versatile—not only can they denote direct quotations, they can also indicate irony or unusual usage, signal that the word, not the concept, is being referred to, or mark a title or nickname. What they do not, NOT, not, not, not, do, however, is indicate emphasis (which is fine, since I just demonstrated four ways that you can show emphasis). So, when I see things like the following pictures, I am a little irritated, but mostly amused at the unintentional humor. Behold:

Friday music post: I Remember

2009-01-23T09:00:00.001-07:00

A new feature on this blog—a little music to ease you into the weekend:

How to tell if you love fetuses or just hate women

2009-01-22T09:27:00.001-07:00

The other day I was listening to NPR in the car while I was going to lunch. The subject of the show was "What's Next For The Anti-Abortion Movement?" (transcript here). Abortion is a subject that I'm reluctant to get into, but after listening to the guests on that program, I feel compelled to make a couple of observations. Besides,today is the 36th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, so it seems like as good of a time as any to talk about the issue—or rather, talk about how we talk about the issue.

I understand the anti-abortion rights movement's argument: abortion is murder, and fetuses deserve protection from the State. I can respect that belief, even if I don't hold it myself. What's more, I think that I can have a productive dialogue with this person. But I don't think I can have a similarly productive dialogue with someone who is against abortion because women who have sex should be punished. This belief is diametrically opposed to life; a child is not a blessing, it is a divine punishment. I really don't have any common ground with anyone who believes this. The problem is that anti-woman people use pro-life rhetoric to sell their agenda. So, to all of you who are wondering whether you or someone you know is pro-life or anti-woman, here's a test:

1. Do you support the availability of birth control and comprehensive sex education?

The number one way that we can reduce abortions is to curb unwanted pregnancies. The way to do that is to make sure that women who have sex have protection and know how to use it. The argument that if you teach kids how to use protection, you're giving them permission to have sex is about as logical as saying that buying insurance for your child's car is giving them permission to get in an accident. Abstinence-only education has been shown over and over again to have no effect on the sexual activity of minors. It does, however, have a huge effect on whether they use protection. If you know all of this and are still against birth control and/or sex education, there's a good chance that you aren't pro-life so much as anti-woman.

2. Do you support demand-side measures to reduce the number of abortions?

Researchers have shown that there is little to no correlation between the legality of abortion and the incidence of abortion. However, there is a strong correlation between poverty and the incidence of abortion. I understand that it matters little to committed pro-lifers whether abortion being illegal would reduce the number of abortion. Their view is that society should send a clear message that abortion is murder, and so it should be a subject of criminal law. That's all fine and good. However, if you are interested in symbolic gestures only, and are not interested in actually stopping abortions from taking place by putting programs into place that make it easier for women to support and raise their children, it is difficult to imagine that you are actually pro-life in any way that is not darkly ironic.

3. Are you willing to admit that the pregnant woman is a life as well?

The thing that struck me about the program on NPR is that there was so little invocation of the word woman or mother. For those that believe that life begins at conception, the fetus is a life. It is odd that they frequently gloss over the other life that is in the equation: the mother's life. When we talk about a fetus being alive, it's important to recognize that this life is one that cannot exist outside of a woman. Having a pregnancy is hard: medically speaking, the woman and the fetus have a parasite-host relationship. The stress on the body from dealing with carrying a fetus to term is intense. Therefore, it seems a decision of some gravity to say to a woman even though she does not want to and it is medically possible for her not to, that she has to carry a parasite in her body for nine months. I understand that to pro-life people, the comparison between the life of a fetus and the suffering of a woman will usually fall in the fetus's favor, but it seems like there's a trade-off that should be acknowledged there. If you treat women as baby-carrying vessels in your arguments about abortion rather than acknowledging that women have interests in this equation that should be taken into account, you are probably anti-woman.

Now, I'm sure that some of you can come up with bad-faith arguments made by pro-choice people. We can get into that in the comments if you wish. I will even engage arguments about how my questions paint with too broad of a brush. I just that you be respectful—I have a delete key and I know how to use it.

Aware of all internet traditions, vol. 1: Zero Wing

2009-01-21T09:29:00.001-07:00

The internet can be a scary place, dear readers. Sometimes, a trip through the series of tubes can be like visiting a foreign country (why do these cats talk in broken English?). That's why I feel a certain obligation to you, my adoring public, to try to help you interpret and navigate the world-wide web. Without further ado, our first lesson:

And the techno remix:

For great justice . . .

We are the ones we have been waiting for

2009-01-20T08:47:00.000-07:00

We made it to Inauguration Day. I honestly was afraid to hope this would actually happen, but here we are. Now, I'll admit that there will be things President Obama will do that I won't approve of, but today, I don't care. I'm going to be an annoying fanboy and you can all just deal with it.

And for you republicans who read this blog, this one's for you:

The following post takes place between 9 am and 10 am

2009-01-19T09:51:00.002-07:00

As 24 begins its seventh season, I thought I'd remind everyone that it is the most evil, immoral, and shameful show on television of all time. But then I remembered that Dalia Lithwick already wrote what I wanted to say, so I will encourage you to read what she has to say. Some highlights:

According to British lawyer and writer Philippe Sands, Jack Bauer—played by Kiefer Sutherland—was an inspiration at early "brainstorming meetings" of military officials at Guantanamo in September of 2002. Diane Beaver, the staff judge advocate general who gave legal approval to 18 controversial new interrogation techniques including water-boarding, sexual humiliation, and terrorizing prisoners with dogs, told Sands that Bauer "gave people lots of ideas." Michael Chertoff, the homeland-security chief, once gushed in a panel discussion on 24 organized by the Heritage Foundation that the show "reflects real life."
* * *
If you're a fan of 24, you'll enjoy The Dark Side. There you will meet Mamdouh Habib, an Australian captured in Pakistan, beaten by American interrogators with what he believed to be an "electric cattle prod," and threatened with rape by dogs. He confessed to all sorts of things that weren't true. He was released after three years without charges. You'll also meet Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer who experienced pretty much the same story, save that the beatings were with electrical cables. Arar was also released without explanation. He's been cleared of any links to terrorism by the Canadian government. Jack Bauer would have known these men were not "ticking time bombs" inside of 10 minutes. Our real-life heroes had to torture them for years before realizing they were innocent.

But, you know, the rule of law is for wimps, so what do I know?

From the department of unfortunate metaphors

2009-01-16T09:22:00.000-07:00

Compare the colloquy beginning at 1:05 of this clip with this paper by Lynn Wardle (pdf), in his paper explaining why gays will destroy marriage as a moral institution:

As to both the general moral norms and the specific moral precepts that are linked with conjugal marriage, the morality of marriage reflects the conjugal nature of the institution of marriage. It is designed to fit the conjugal relationship like a well-tailored glove, to support, liberate, nurture, enhance, and strengthen that particular kind of relationship. Inserting the entirely different hand of same-sex relationships into that “glove,” as it were, and trying to force the customized morality tailored for male-female, chaste, faithful, committed, etc., relationship of conjugal marriage onto the gay or lesbian couples hand of profoundly different dimensions, size, bulk, and structure is to invite frustration for same-sex couples, and distortion and tearing of the stitching and fabric of the glove created for an entirely different kind of hand.

Yes, this is the same paper where he talks about the "rubbing off" going both ways. Comedy gold...

The all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world

2009-01-15T09:41:00.003-07:00

Allow me to take this moment to say, screw Mark Driscoll. Screw him, his hipster jeans, and his hipster church.

Now, dear readers, you're probably wondering what has brought about such intemperate expression from your humble blogger. If you are wondering, you probably haven't read this article in the New York Times Magazine last Sunday. You see, Mr. Driscoll is cool. He cusses. He dresses in skull t-shirts and watches UFC. Oh, and did I mention he's a preacher? You see, Mr. Driscoll is trying to save the world from what he refers to as "'a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,' a 'neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell.'"

Mark Driscoll's Jesus

No, Mr. Driscoll's God is all man; he's said on occasion that he can't believe in a God that he could beat up. You see, Mark Driscoll is a neo-Calvinist, which means he believes in predestination. Nothing us mere mortals could ever do would change God's mind about who goes to heaven or hell—God decided that long before we ever got here. God not only cures your cancer, but he also gives you cancer. Mr. Driscoll's God is, in short, kind of a dick.

Of course, Mr. Driscoll (and his God) have no real use for women or gays, either.But that's not what gets me angry. Misogyny and homophobia, while dismaying, are not all that surprising when it comes to preachers. No, what really upsets me is that this guy is worshiping Tyler Durden from Fight Club. To read this guy's public statements and to watch his videos, it's like he read Palahniuk's book and missed the irony (not the first time that's happened—see, e.g., BYU's fight clubs). Quick lesson, boys and girls: Tyler Durden was not the hero of that particular story. While Tyler's critique of decadent, consumerist society may appeal to many (I think it is inspired), his solution was to destroy civilization. Likewise, Mr. Driscoll replaces Jesus with a badass cage fighter who doesn't let people choose hell, but actively chooses it for them, and randomly saves people because, f— you, he's God, he doesn't have to explain s— to you. This is just another example of post-modern nihilism and Christianism meeting around the flip side. Like I said in my earlier post on Armageddon, these people aren't Christians. They're wolves at the gates. I believe that the ideas of liberal civilization can defeat all comers, but we have to actively defend liberalism to succeed.

Quiet Dignity

2009-01-14T09:23:00.000-07:00

Utah's 3rd District must be so proud:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Leg Wrestling Rematch

Colbert at Christmas
Colbert Christmas DVD

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

Their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us?

2009-01-13T09:49:00.003-07:00

This article just floored me. Apparently, ProtectMarriage.com and National Organization for Marriage California are suing in federal court trying to keep their donor lists private. They say that these disclosure requirements are unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure this challenge has less that no chance of prevailing, but it shows a tendency in this whole fight that I found rather surprising—it seems that religious supporters of Prop 8, and Mormons in particular, don't have the stomach for being a peculiar people that they once may have done.

Being a peculiar people was an important part of my identity growing up. Mormons didn't drink, didn't smoke, paid tithing, etc. The "world" thought we were crazy because we did this, and that strengthened our resolve to do it. We were in the world but not of the world, and we expected that we would be persecuted for our beliefs when we were out in the world. The persecution meant that we were right. And wow, were we good at feeling persecuted.

Only, it turns out that persecution for these beliefs never materialized. No one seemed to care that I didn't drink in college; it meant they had a designated driver without ever putting anyone out. My college was ranked in the top 5 for most likely to forget God, and I felt peculiar, but not persecuted. I would say that most Mormons have the same experience. A person's private decisions usually don't stir up resentment among others. Mormons had been used to being viewed as a harmless oddity. That was about to change.

Proposition 8 changed being a peculiar people from getting weird looks to having protesters outside of temples. Suddenly, Church headquarters, which had previously been pleased with taking the lead on the Prop 8 fight, now said that they were a small part of a coalition (a hard claim to make considering that LDS donations were estimated at over 50% of the total yes on 8 donations). Three LDS members resigned from their jobs in fairly high-profile ways. Being a Mormon changed from weird people who don't drink to anti-gay bigots.

It's totally understandable that people don't want to be called bigots. If a person believes that her actions are motivated out of love, she may feel confused and hurt that people believe that her acts are motivated out of hate. However, this is something that I actually thought Mormons would have anticipated and even looked forward to. After all of these years of indifference by the world, here was a chance for persecution to purify and strengthen the Church like it did in the pioneer days.

Before someone flames me, let me be clear: I'm not suggesting that Mormons should gladly bear persecution without complaint. Modern Mormons found out something that their forbears knew too well: it sucks to be persecuted. As far as I'm concerned, no one should be subject to harassment for holding a particular opinion, and no one should have to grin and bear it—that isn't American. However, at the same time I feel that there is a lesson in this. A persecution complex is all about feeling superior and self-righteous. When a person takes everything as a slight, it's easy to feel persecuted. Plus, that person never has to go through any of the real anguish that actual persecution brings. It's easy and cheap, and unhealthy. How much better it is to not seek to be offended nor to interpret the actions of others as persecution. Only then can we find ourselves as neighbors and friends.

Which brings me to the point: There's a difference between having your life threatened or your property vandalized and being boycotted or protested for something you did. The former is illegal and should be dealt with via the justice system. The latter is what one should expect in politics. When a person injects herself into a public controversy, she has to bear the consequences of that action, be they praise or protest. Donating money is one thing a person can do to inject herself into a public controversy. There is only one place in politics where a person is promised privacy: the voting booth. Every other venue of the political arena, one's actions are subject to scrutiny and criticism. People in a democratic society should welcome that dialogue. If a person believes that her ideas are right, she should be able to convince others. In time, the best ideas will win, if we are willing to defend our ideas, and to listen to others.

UPDATE: Brad's comment reminded me that I didn't do a very good job of defining persecution. Let me demonstrate:

The two axes are private beliefs or a person's identity vs. Someone's public advocacy of a particular policy. The other axis is a legal act in reaction v. an illegal act in reaction. My definition of persecution is illegal behavior against a person in reaction to that person's personal beliefs or identity. I assume that some legal behavior may rise to the level of persecution (insults, ad hominem attacks), but I'm squishy on that point. If someone wants to convince me one way or another, they can try in the comments.

Just a little note...

2009-01-12T09:07:00.000-07:00

Just in case you needed a way to ease into your workweek, here's a site that's sure to waste some of your morning. Some of my favorites: