Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Celebration of Marriage

The Sutherland Institute is hosting a significant event on 31 Mar at 7:30 pm in their "Celebration of Marriage". Ryan T. Anderson will be the featured speaker.

Reservations are available for those wishing to attend.

Also available online now at the Celebration of Marriage site are videos of the speakers that were featured at the "Stand for Marriage" rally held in the Utah State Capitol on 28 Jan, as well as a link to the Ryan T. Anderson event with Rod Arquette.

It was an informative presentation, followed up by a Q&A session with Anderson and Arquette fielding questions from the audience.

Thanks again to Mary Summerhays for helping to bring this all together.  Though it got off the ground rather slowly, the presentation is well worth watching.

Some of Mr. Anderson's ideas on negative impacts of accepting same-sex "marriage"...

First, redefinition of marriage eliminates upholding the ideal that all children deserve a mom and a dad.  It is being replaced with the proposal that marriage is now about nothing other than consenting adult relationships.

Second, the slippery slope.  Redefinition risks opening the door to any arbitrary radical relationship as "marriage", thereby eliminating the "monogamy" standard, replacing it with temporary trendy fads.

Third, compromise of religious liberty by government forced "discriminatory discrimination".  As evidenced in government regulation against adoption agencies and child care with religious basis, services that act on the religious ideals of owners.

From the Q and A session...

"Red herring" argument that pleads for "gay" hospital visitation.  This issue has been settled years ago by "power of attorney" regulations, and the problem no longer exists anywhere in the US.

Divorce and "gay" marriage.  Single definition for "marriage".  This is an "up and coming" industry for lawyers.  Convoluted legalistic issues.  This was one of the chief justifications for DOMA.

"End game" predictions.  Using the law and government to force others to recognize arbitrary "marriage" redefinition. No real "live and let live" concessions.

Why not pursue legal counter-suit?  Some issues currently appealing to Supreme Court for review.

Results of social studies.  After decades of evidence that traditional marriage is best, isolated non-representative sampling studies argued that lesbians are best.  Most divorces are implemented by women.  Maleness is promiscuous.

Where is this all going, what to do to moderate?  Possibilities.  Appropriate response in comparison to Supreme Court "Roe v. Wade".  Continued pro-life fight against abortion over time as an example.

Another video presentation from Sutherland Institute's Paul Duncan.  Discussion of proceedings at Tenth Circuit Court at Denver CO, 11 April 2014.

Saturday, March 22, 2014

The Sacred Sacraments of Contemporary Feminism

Though owners of the "Common Consent" blog no longer deign to permit me to comment on their inane observations, I still read with some interest, and even fascination from time to time.

I should add that at one time I took the trouble to bypass the security system at "Common Consent", but once I had access again, I found that I had little to say that would have made any impression in that forum.  They obviously think very highly of themselves.

This week there was an interesting post about someone's divorce experience.  The story itself was a rather boring tedious repetition of all the agonized dramatic breast-beating tearful pathetic melodrama that is commonly staged in nearly every divorce.  My interest was drawn by what was NOT mentioned.  In considering all the implications of divorce, the post and comments were careful not to mention one thing.

Before the beginning of a certain epoch, the divorce rate per marriage was relatively low.  The rate began to go up in the '60s, roughly doubled in the '70s, and peaked in the '80s.

The falling-off of the rate since then probably relates to the contemporary social trend to abjure marriage altogether, more than any tendency toward avoiding divorce.  In social trends, marriage decline from that watershed point led to corresponding gradual decline in every related statistic.  Judging by the popular media coverage, the only people still wanting to get married are Hollywood celebrities and homosexuals.  Both groups seem predisposed to casual divorces and other associated trends.

In fact the divorce trend seems to fit rather nicely with several other social trends.  No coincidence that trends in marriage rates, divorce rates, birth rates, and abortion rates correspond so closely.

My impression is that divorce is one of the sacred sacraments of feminism.  The application of this ubiquitous and vociferous world-view began to be popularized at the end of the '60s, and continues through the present. The popularity of the feminist social trend is reflected in the sudden increase of these rates.  It reflects a destructive and pernicious philosophy that challenges the foundations of heathy human society.

The toll of every feminist "victory" brings the world one step closer to the extinction of the human race.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Minding My Own Business

I used to see a lot of such signs.  Apparently they are no longer politically-correct.

Ben Shapiro editorializes about this phenomenon.

The trend toward increased intolerance for anything that does not meet with popular approval continues to grow.

Minority interests force their views through lawsuits and sympathetic courts.  Anyone expressing non-conforming views is liable to get sued.  We have entered a realm where the thought police have attained supremacy.  The rulings of federal judges has far more preeminence than mere democratic process.

In my view, each needs to find his own balance.  My personal answer is to try to live after the manner of happiness.  Others seem to find different answers.

I find no reason to denigrate the viewpoint of others.  We all stand in our own place, and every perspective is unique.  But I maintain, and will continue to insist, that there is something that represents the ideal.  And it represents something that is greater than me, or any purpose that humankind can effect.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Gas to Alcohol Conversion

A dramatic science discovery once again has the potential to change our world.

A BYU chemistry research project has developed an effective method for converting natural gas into alcohol, discussed in a Deseret News article.

Liquid alcohol is more stable than natural gas and will be practical to store and transport using existing methods for the gasoline and petroleum supply.

Natural gas production in the US is currently in a growth phase.  It has the potential to eliminate the US dependency on foreign oil imports.  

Sunday, March 09, 2014

UCAP Conference

A Deseret News report on the conference here.

Utah Caucus Meetings

Attend your neighborhood Utah caucus meeting.  This is your opportunity to participate in local politics, at the grass roots level.

20 March 7:00 PM.

If you don't know where the meeting is in your neighborhood, look it up...

If you are registered with the Utah Republican Party

If you are registered with the Utah Democratic Party

Deseret News article on caucus meetings.

The Utah County 17th Precinct news is published by Sabrina Barry at this blog.

At the Utah County 17th Precinct caucus on Thursday 20 Mar, the following appointments were ratified:

Precinct Chair:
Merrill Oyler  801-368-1860  mroyler56@yahoo.com

Precinct Vice Chair:

Sabrina Barry  801-592-3702  yourvoicep17@gmail.com

State Delegates:
Vi Herrin  801-375-6096  sherrin@byu.edu
Sabrina Barry 801-592-3702  yourvoicep17@gmail.com

County Delegates:
Paul V. Child 801-830-6014  paulvchild@yahoo.com
Roberta Robertson  801-377-1160  bertandroberta1@msn.com
Holly Eaton  801-669-6728  hollyeaton23@gmail.com
Clint Miller 801-377-0841

Sabrina Barry  801-592-3702  yourvoicep17@gmail.com 

Wednesday, March 05, 2014

EU Temple Tax

In a back-page article, the Deseret News gives notice that an EU court has ruled that the LDS Temple in Preston England will no longer be considered as a "public place of worship", and will be subject to a tax as other such private organizations.

The rationale for tax exemption stems from the idea that social governments have a vested interest in the perpetuation of organizations that promote the welfare of members of society.  This is generally viewed as a relative furthering of the interest of government.

In this instance, the EU court apparently ruled that a private place of worship, even if it is property of a charitable religious organization, must be subject to taxation because it is not open to public access.  Entry to LDS Temples requires a Temple Recommend, which is available to worthy members.

The basis for this court ruling is tortured logic at best.  It is probably indicative of a government that is desperate for any source of tax revenue.

Certainly there must be many examples of private business that operates as a charity, yet maintains places of private activity in premises that are not open to the public.  The right to privacy is an essential feature of property rights.  Categorizing tax status according to who has access to private facilities is a bizarre legalistic nuance.

As the fostering and participation in religious organizations wanes in Europe,  it is likely that other such finely legalistic manipulations will come into play.  Apparently European government no longer feels obligated to consider religious organization as contributing to the general welfare or of any worth that distinguishes from any other enterprise.

This legal decision would not really seem to represent a great liability to the LDS Church, but it is probably a significant reflection of the future of interaction between secular government and religion in the EU.  Sadly, a little bit of tax revenue now seems a more important consideration.

It would be interesting to see a list of what the EU governments still consider as fully tax-exempt properties.

I have never been to the Preston Temple, but I have visited a number of LDS Temples in the US.  They generally feature a common room to accomodate non-members visiting the Temple, but not participating in Temple ordinances.  So formally, it is probably not even true that Temples do not allow "public access".

Sunday, March 02, 2014

"Gay" in the News: Resistance to Popular Sentiment is Futile

Resistance is Futile.  You will be assimilated...

According to popularity surveys, the idea of "same-sex marriage" is gaining public approval.  This attitude reportedly represents the changing tide of public acceptance, which by most accounts, amounts to a rather euphoric sense of inevitability.

You're about to be assimilated.  Why fight it?

It is evident that the predators can smell the blood in the water.  It excites them.  The feeding frenzy ensues.

Personally, I find the idea of assimilation to be rather distasteful.  I would rather fancy myself as capable of forming my own opinions, regardless of the popularity of certain ideas.  So I consistently resist the suggestion of any compulsion by the ebb and flow of the thundering herd.  Notwithstanding, I am not into absorbing personal punishment without reason.  I stand aside for the passage of the thundering herd, purely out of respect for preponderance.  Though I tend not to conform with popularity, I see no need to get trampled.

Someone whose opinion I respect carries more weight than any popular survey or public opinion poll.  Thomas S. Monson counseled for seeking confirmation from God to help us bear up the courage of our convictions.
It is this sweet assurance that can guide you and me—in our time, in our day, in our lives. Of course, we will face fear, experience ridicule, and meet opposition. Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval. Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but also as a determination to live decently. A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh. Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well.  (The Call for Courage)
Maybe it is foolish, perhaps resistance is futile.   But until I am informed by a more authoritative source than popularity, I will continue to stand for principle, trying to defend the causes I believe are right and good.

That does not necessarily mean always opposing what is popular.  It means thoughtfully promoting what I believe to be right, regardless of what the latest popular survey says.

My enthusiasm for discussing this issue is exhausted, though it is no less prominent in the news media coverage or in the important events taking place at this time.  Declining to write more about it here does not indicate that it is any less of a concern, or that my interest in the prevention of current trends has declined. I'm just sick of discussing it.

Saturday, March 01, 2014

"Gay" in the News: Comedian Outed as *&

For his insensitive satire of the new Facebook Genderbread categories, comedian Stephen Colbert faces media criticism.  Oh, what a shock.

Some are complaining that Colbert's treatment of the new Facebook concession to "gender identity" is just "nasty".  To me it comes across as a hilarious romp, all the funnier because of its accuracy in characterizing the ridiculous extremes this issue has drawn us into.

Nasty - strangely enough, that's what most of us have been trying to explain about our reaction to homosexual behavior for many years.

"Gay" in the News: NYTimes Sort of Helps Out

Wondering what to feel about Arizona storms raging in the media?  Once again, a NYTimes column dispels any confusion.  We are left with no doubt about the most popular politically-correct doctrine of the time.  Continuing the trend of popular media misrepresentation, the NYTimes sorta helps out.

Though perhaps it remains to be seen who these "morans" might be.

We understand by the blessing of such NYTimes wisdom that those miserable Arizona Congress critters, abandoning the sinking ship of desecrating sacred "gay rights", have pivoted,  now busy aiming their impotent guns of discrimination against another sacred sacrament, compromising the freedom of abortion clinics. 

And here you were thinking that Arizona is just a political backwater of no consequence to Real Important People of the NYTimes.  Arizona's obvious purpose for existence is to provide fodder for NYTimes readers to fashionably deplore.

Now we really KNOW how to engage in public ridicule of the unenlightened and intolerant.   With all the authority and sensitivity of the NYTimes.

We of the benighted regions should perhaps just shuffle back into our caves, drink the haute Kool-aid, and shut up.  For those who need permission, you know now what to think.  Be glad that the NYTimes, true source of all benevolence and virtue, has deigned to take notice.

"Gay" in the News: Resistance is Futile

Resistance is futile.  So the Borg has spoken.

Nothing new here, but an interesting perspective on the Arizona "anti-gay" bill, now that it has been properly vetoed and laid to rest with a stake in its heart, along with all other such bigoted discrimination.  We know it was only calculated to promote the posting of still more of those pernicious "NO GAYS ALLOWED" signs that we see in Arizona businesses all over the state.  Because most of the media coverage told us so.

The article makes a good case for characterizing public perception, especially as it is so strongly steered by the media today.  A headline in the NY Times is worth far more toward coloring public sentiment than all the apologetic posts that were ever written.

In fact, the Arizona bill was similar to legislation that is proposed or already enacted in several other states.

It basically repackaged the ideas embodied in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and made them applicable to the State of Arizona.  Remarkably, the original RFRA was sponsored by Chuck Schumer, was nearly unanimously approved in the Congress, and was signed by President Clinton in 1993.

So, is the federal legislation also "anti-gay"?  Could it be an example of federally-based "Jim Crow"?

In her speech justifying the veto, Governor Brewer asserted that not one example of religious discrimination has been found.  But most ironically, it also seems telling that not one "NO GAYS ALLOWED" sign has been found in any Arizona businesses either.