Judicial Tyranny and the Slow Cultural Murder of Utah

Utahns are now dhimmi.  Google that word to see what I mean.

I used to be a Utahn, and still am at heart, so to read that Utahn culture and politics are no longer defined by Utahns unsettled me.  I’ll be honest: it frightens me and makes me feel helpless. 

If Utah, of all places, can have a single federal judge wipe out the views of a supermajority of the state’s populace, and institute gay marriage in Utah because he doesn’t see any “rational” reason against it, what is to come?

We don’t have any states rights any more.  Nowadays, the states are more like super-sized counties. 

No longer can we say that Texas and California are different but equally valuable to the United States; no longer can we say that Utah and Oregon have different cultures but similar principles of liberty guiding them.

Now, all the states have to be alike.  Now every culture, every state, every person has to pay homage to the LBGT political agenda.  To publically disagree with them will get you fired from your job at A&E, and now will mean that you no longer have any say in your state’s political and cultural institutions.  Now, activist judges are effectively forcing every state to reward homosexual behavior.

That’s what the fight about the definition of marriage is about: the LBGT political agenda wants to see everyone forced to not only tolerate homosexual unions, but to accept them.  They not only want to have their gay pride parades, but want to force everyone to walk in them. 

I don’t believe this has to be.  The nature of pluralistic society demands that we tolerate homosexuality: if two consenting adults want to have a perverted relationship, that’s up to them.  I DO NOT support or condone any form of persecution against anyone for their lifestyle choices.

That being said, no one has the right to have their lifestyle choices accepted by the government.  No one has the right to be rewarded for loving whichever way they want to. 

What does this mean to Utah?  It means that Utah’s politics and culture are forever in the hands of the federal government.  Now Utah has to reward and incentivize behavior that Utahns feel is immoral.  The changes in these social institutions will in turn change Utahn culture, making Utah into something that Utah is not. 

I’m fine with Utah changing, of course.  Utah needs to change (especially Utahn drivers) with the years.  However, it should be Utahns driving that change.  Eventually, if Utahns want to accept homosexuality, they should do it of their own free will.  A basic tenant of our democratic system is that the majority rules.  This, evidently, is no longer the case.  Now, a supermajority of voters doesn’t matter.  Only one judge’s opinion of what is “rational” is important.  Add some liberal lackeys willing to keep the courthouse open past normal hours and WHAM!! You’ve got instant social change. 

I said that I felt helpless.  This is because voting is obviously no longer effective.  Let me say that again:  IF YOU DEPEND ON THE BALLOT BOX TO GET THIS CHANGED, YOU WILL FAIL.

There are things we can do, however.  We can agitate.  We can demonstrate.  We can engage in civil disobedience. 

Ghandi called it “satyagraha.”  Martin Luther King was a fan, and now I’m suggesting it to you.  I call it NOVA:

No

Obedience

Violence or

Acceptance

No obedience to the rulings of an out-of-state judge:  Because the Constitution does not specifically say that we must accept homosexuality, the judge’s opinion is worth the same as any voter’s. 

No violence against anyone because of their political views or lifestyle choices: We are engaging in true political discourse and defining our own society’s social institutions.  Not only would violence be counterproductive, but more importantly, it would be immoral. 

No acceptance of homosexuality: We do not have to think like perverts in order to be good Americans.  We do not have to agree with all other Americans in order to be good Americans.  We can respectfully agree to disagree, let other states do their thing, and do our own thing.

Protest, engage in sit-ins, march, MAKE LOUD NOISES BECAUSE OTHERWISE NO ONE IS GOING TO LISTEN TO YOU.

Unfortunately, I’m not in Utah anymore.  I’m across the country and don’t have the means to get back and agitate.  If I were in Happy Valley, I’d be going door to door by now trying to make it Disturbed Valley.  It would be a tremendous amount of work: there are a couple of political nerds like me, but by and large Utahns are pretty passive.

That won’t work anymore.  Utahns cannot sit on their laurels and depend on their natural cheerfulness and pleasantness to get the job done.  If Utah truly wants to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, Utahns will have to upset some people.  May I suggest that a sit-in in the Salt Lake County Clerk’s office would be the proper first step. 

This will go through the court system for some months.  I hope the Supreme Court will do the right thing and rule in favor of Utahns’ right to define Utahn social institutions.  But what if they don’t?  What will Utah do if the Supreme Court invents new rights that the Constitution doesn’t acknowledge? 

I suggest that Utah simply ignores them, like they should simply ignore this wacko judge.  Let them make whatever rulings they want, UNTIL THE CONSTITUTION  ACTUALLY SAYS SO, WE DON’T HAVE TO ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE.

That’s my opinion, and my opinion isn’t important anymore, since I moved away from Utah over a year ago.  Evidently, however, Utahns’ opinions don’t matter anymore, anyway.

Like I said: Utahns are now dhimmi. 

Open Letter to Santa Claus

St. Nicholas of Mira, aka “Santa Clause”

1 North Pole Drive

North Pole

Dear Santa:

Hi, Santa, this is Jim.  I know it’s been a while since I wrote to you.  I think the last time was when I was 7.  Anyway, as you probably know, I’m now 31-years-old and have two young children under two.  They’re the reason I’m writing you—I just wanted to let you know to not to expect them to write to you.  Ever.

This is because my wife and I have decided to not tell our two children (and any others who come along) about you.  Oh, sure, they’ll hear about you—our society is so Santa saturated that there will be no stopping that—but it won’t be from us. 

We decided to buck tradition and do this mainly because you aren’t who you used to be.  At the beginning of your career, you were a saint, a philanthropist, and something of an ascetic (you gave away your entire fortune, after all).  Now you’re a morbidly obese symbol of excess and a conduit of greed. 

As we see it, this has three main effects.  First of all, you are no longer helping us parent our children.  While once Santa gave presents only to good little boys and girls (thus giving all boys and girls incentive to be good) now it seems you give presents to everyone.  Were there any children who actually received coal last year? 

Changing from disciplinarian to the King of Handouts would be fine, of course, if you didn’t keep up the pretense of checking the list twice.  By pretending to be discriminate, then giving gifts regardless, you teach children that any behavior is acceptable. 

Second, by concentrating so much on stuff you encourage a materialism that doesn’t fully end when the holidays do.  Kids learn that the stuff one gets is directly correlated to how much one is loves.  Once again, this would be fine if you were honest and upfront about it.  Instead, however, you attach this materialism, leech-like, to a Christian holiday that has “peace on earth” and “good will toward men” as mottos.  If we want to have another material holiday, we’ll ask Hallmark. 

Third, you’ve started to act the usurper.  Instead of Christmas being about Christ, the majority of our time and efforts during the holidays are spent on material and secular things.  As before, this would be fine if there weren’t the shallow façade of religiosity that can prevent people from ever learning about the sublime story of the Nativity.

Granted, Christmas has never been solely a liturgical affair, but the birth of our Lord certainly deserves more mention than you do.  You’ve sold out—whereas you once gave dowries to three young women so they wouldn’t have to make money in a brothel, now you’ve whored yourself to sell Coca-Cola. 

Don’t get me wrong—you mean well, but you know just as well as I do where the road paved with good intentions goes.  You want the best for children—you want them to be happy, and seeing a child like the one below crying because he didn’t get anything breaks your heart. 

But in the end, it doesn’t help children if you give them everything they want or if you make them happy all of the time.  The whole point of growing up is for children to learn how to moderate their emotions and their desires, how to act in socially acceptable ways, and how to master themselves. 

Thus my challenge to you would be to actually give out coal this year—at least to those children who need it.  But whether you do or not, I know my children will get coal when they deserve it, and they’ll be the better for it. 

Sincerely,

Jim

Why I Still Support the Traditional Definition of Marriage

Recently the Supreme Court of the United States made several bad decisions related to DOMA and Proposition 8.  I just want to point them out:

1.      If the federal government cannot define the reception of federal benefits based on the values of the nation as a whole, whose values do we use?

2.      If a body of people who put a plebiscite (ballot initiative) on the ballot doesn’t have standing to sue for that initiative’s enforcement, who does?  How do “We the People” then force the government to enforce the ballot initiatives we create?

I don’t want to write in detail about these legalistic and constitutional problems, mainly because I don’t really have the training to fully understand them.  A bachelor’s degree in Political Science only gives me a generalist’s training in government and law.

Instead, I’d like to write about what motivates me to support the traditional definition of marriage, even though some will say that an acceptance of homosexuality is “historically inevitable.”  In doing so, I’d like to note that we live in a pluralistic society, one where it’s understood that rational people can disagree emphatically about controversial issues.  I know it irks some gay rights activists, but I really don’t hate anyone.

Hatred is an emotion, and regardless of what my political beliefs are, as long as I’m not advocating violence (which I absolutely do not) no one can imply that I “hate” someone simply because I disagree with their world view.  I work for an openly gay supervisor, and I’m fine with that.  Similarly, I don’t fear anyone (a.k.a., homophobia) simply because I disagree with the LBGT political agenda.

Just as I cannot infer that someone “hates” Christians simply because they disagree with Christian values, so others cannot infer that I “hate” homosexuals simply because I’m not willing to reward their behavior.  I don’t hate gays, I simply disagree with them.

My support of traditional marriages stems from my values.  I believe that monogamous, permanent, heterosexual relationships are the ideal sexual relationship because that is what God has said.  In my religious tradition, this injunction has been repeated  both in ancient and modern revelation. 

Surprised?  I’ll bet no one is.  Most activists who support traditional marriage support traditional values.  Such values are often informed by religion, and THAT’S ALL RIGHT.  True, there is a growing body of sociological evidence that points to traditional marriage as the best place for children to grow up, and that’s a powerful argument.  However, sociology doesn’t motivate people to political activism; instead, the primary motivation (even to seek such sociology) is rooted in one’s prior values, including religious values. 

The Constitution, of course, does well to separate the institutions of Church and State.  The varying opinions of men and interpretations of religion would quickly make tyranny the norm should those two institutions merge in any degree in a government of men.  However, this separation only extends so far.  While the government cannot and should not require any religious observance (no religious test for office), it is too much to expect that voters should forget their values the moment they walk into a voting booth.

 As a result, when the electorate is called on to define their social institutions, and to determine which behaviors it would like to reward and incentivize, values (both religious and secular) inextricably enter the equation.

Some counter by saying that marriage is a right which is denied to those living a homosexual lifestyle, and that such denial is arbitrary.  My response is that such a statement requires a certain worldview that can be neither proven nor disproven (that’s called a “value”) that says that homo- and heterosexual lifestyles are equally worthwhile.

In the end, then, the best way for society to determine how to define its social institutions is through an aggregation of its values.  In short, a plebiscite, or “put it to a vote.”  The ballot initiative called Proposition 8 did precisely this.  If the electorate of one state wants to reward and incentivize homosexual relationships, so be it.  If another doesn’t, so be it.

But what of those who say that homosexuality is part of who they are, something they cannot change and, as a result, something that has to be accepted by society?  I see a large difference between sexual intuition and sexual behavior.  Sexual intuition is wired in the body, with varying levels of plasticity, meaning that sexual orientation can sometimes be defined by one’s nature.  That nature can change and shift; look to the ex-gay movement for examples of those who have changed from homosexual to heterosexual natures; conversely, there are many examples of people who have lived happily married as heterosexuals and then “come out of the closet.”

This is because sexual behavior is only informed by, rather than defined by, sexual intuition.  Many, if not all, people restrain their sexual behavior in order to conform to social norms.  The growing social taboo against sexual harassment in the workplace is proof positive that social norms can successfully constrain sexual activities.  It is ethically required in our culture to treat women, in the workplace and out, with respect.

If we expect our social norms to successfully constrain some sexual activities, why then does one person’s sexual orientation require society to accept their lifestyle?  This conclusion only follows if it is accompanied by the secular value that homo- and heterosexual behaviors are equally worthwhile.  Without that unproven and non-disprovable value, the argument falls on its face.

The purpose of civilization itself is to take us beyond our animal instinct, to have us act not just on instinct, but through the prisms of reason and morality.  A CNN opinion author recently wrote that monogamy is unnatural.  I agree, but I still think monogamy is ideal.  Our fallen natures seek both good and evil.  Not all that is artificial is bad, and not all that is natural is good.  The whole point behind values and ideals is that they make us better.  Sexual ideals are ideals not because they best reflect who we already are but because of who they make us become.

In the end, the definition of marriage is all about values and ideals.  The religious right is generally honest about this fact, while the secular left has been rather hypocritical, calling itself the only “rational” choice, claiming that it’s a “civil rights” question.  Some will say that I am “horrifyingly closed minded” simply because I don’t share the assumption that homosexual instinct is good and natural.  I know it is quite natural, but like my own predilection towards gluttony and obesity, it isn’t necessarily healthy.  Like all morality, the morality of homosexuality should be judged external to self, for the mere existence of a thing does not make that thing good or bad.

I do not want to withhold marital benefits from homosexuals because I feel they are bad people.  We’re all bad people trying (with varying levels of effort) to be good people.  Instead, I feel that I cannot in good conscience support social institutions that reward and incentivize a lifestyle I believe is morally wrong.   I don’t hate those who live homosexual lifestyles—I just disagree with them.