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. 

What is the "right side" of history?

As I was reading on the Interweb today, I came across an article entitled: “Will Minnesota Voters Be on the Right Side of History?” The whole premise of this seems to encapsulate several assumptions that I have found in a large number of LBGT-agenda-driven arguments, so I'd like to respond to them, and by extension, to this article.  As I understand it, Ms. Chellew-Hodge is arguing the following:

1.       History has a “right side” and a “wrong side,” and we can determine ahead of time what arguments are on the “right side” of history.

2.       The debate about gay marriage is primarily concerned with the civil rights of gays and lesbians to marry whom they wish.

3.       Gays and lesbians serve their country and their communities with pride and distinction; therefore, they and their behavior should be accepted.

4.       Advocates of traditional values have no valid argumentation; all of their arguments detract from real “conversation.”

First, Chellew-Hodge begins her article with an assumption-ridden title asking if Minnesota voters will be on the “right side” of history.  What makes her believe that history has a right side?  Neither history nor culture is linear—if anything, it’s cyclical, a series of back-and-forth swings on a pendulum.  Thus, how can we be sure that culture will continue evolving as we currently see it evolving?  Even if it does, why does that mean that this evolution is a good thing?

The main problem with this argument is that it leads to moral cowardice.  Things that appear inevitable now become morally acceptable, regardless of their actual ethical content.  In Germany of 1930, the anti-Semitism and eugenics of the Nazi party may very well have appeared to be on the “right side” of history –yet they were still monstrously wrong.  In the deep South in the late 19^th century, Jim Crow laws and institutionalized segregation seemed culturally unchangeable—that doesn’t mean they were on the “right side” of history.

Second, the debate about the definition of marriage is not one of civil rights and especially not one of human rights.  Put simply, marriage is not a right—it is a social institution designed to perpetuate and reward behavior that society as a whole deems acceptable.  We do have a right to family: to live with whom we will, to love whom we will, and to have whatever children come from this relationship.  We have a right to whatever religious ceremony we wish to have performed (from those who wish to perform it), but we do not have the right to have this union recognized and rewarded by society as a whole.

Don't get me wrong-no one believes in the sanctity of the marriage covenant more than I do--as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I firmly believe that marriage for time and for all eternity is a blessing and the apex of the new and everlasting covenant with which we are saved (by the grace of Jesus Christ).  Nevertheless, when we are making public policy in a lone and dreary world and in a heterogeneous nation where many have divergent opinions, marriage must be treated as a social institution so that the morality of the majority can hold sway:

Therefore, when debating the definition of marriage, bemoaning the fact that some people aren’t accepted and cannot be rewarded for behavior that society disapproves of is not relevant.  Instead, we should approach the debate as one of pure morality: someone’s morality will be legislated, so we might as well be honest about it and legislate the morality of the majority, rather than obfuscate the whole debate with a smoke screen of “rights.” 

Third, while many gays and lesbians serve as model citizens and even heroes, this does not affect how homosexuality should be treated as a practice.  Chellew-Hodge infers  that since gays and lesbians are good people, we have to accept and reward their sexual deviances.  Using this vein of logic, I could also conclude that since plagiarism is conducted by many students who give to the community, that plagiarism should be rewarded.  Likewise, since many good parents eat their steaks very rare, that this behavior should be lauded and institutionalized.  Most gays and lesbians are good people: this does not mean that we have to reward (via marriage) all of their behavior. 

Finally, Chellew-Hodge falls into a trap that most gay-“rights” activists fall into: claiming that their adversaries have no part in any rational debate, and that any arguments they posit are simply homophobic:   “According to the Baptist Press, though, instead of a conversation, anti-marriage equality groups “will focus on two themes that have proven successful in other states: 1) children need mother and fathers 2)legalizing gay marriage will have negative consequences on religious freedoms and impact what is taught in elementary schools.”” [1] Rather than engaging these ideas on their own merits, Chellew-Hodge ignores the vast amount of data that support them.

Instead, she lightly dismisses these (and by extension, any argument favoring traditional values) as not part of any rational debate.  Of course, I can’t blame Chellew-Hodge specifically.  This instinct to demean all argumentation against her agenda is systemic: nearly all gay “rights” activists act this way.  This is because they wish to define “conversation” as meaning, “conversation with which I agree”. 

So what should we talk about in the debate about the definition of marriage?  In the end, the argumentation on both sides is normative, and the rational discussant will acknowledge the moral implications of all these points, recognizing that both sides have intelligent, passionate supporters.  This debate is inherently a moral one, and should be treated as such rather than as a group of intelligent, rational debaters lecturing a motley collection of hicks and ignorant religionists.

---