Miss California
I get all my news via news.google.com. I figure if a headline shows up at a news aggregation site like that, then it's probably worth a look. This morning on news.google.com I followed a headline about the controversy at the Miss USA pageant that occured last night. After reading a couple of articles, I looked up the video of the Miss USA pageant last night where Miss California comments on same sex marriage. Now, disregard how exceedingly vapid these kinds of "contests" are, and disregard how silly most of the answers to beauty pageant questions are (for example, see here which was lampooned by Jimmy Kimmel here)... but just take a moment - for pure entertainment's sake only - compare the demeanor of the reporter Perez Hilton asking Miss California the question at the beginning of the video... and then the look on Mr. Hilton's face at the end after the answer was given. Classic jaw drop! LOL.

Miss California finished 2nd. If she had given the "right answer" maybe she would have won? She finished as the runner-up... so, I'm guessing.... yeah, probably.

Supporting Proposition 8... On Faith
My friend Khan writes yesterday on faith:

Those of faith who supported Prop 8 betray a turpitude that undermines the moral high ground they assume they hold, because this legislation, as history will eventually disambiguate, is fundamentally equivalent to the hateful laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

With regard to the issue of same-sex marriage, I think that substantively I am on the same page with President-elect Obama. He said this during an MTV interview in the week immediately prior to election day:

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. [...] What I believe is that if we have strong civil unions out there that provide legal rights to same-sex couples that they can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick, that they can transfer property to each other. If they've got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners. I think that is the direction we need to go."

Here is what the LDS Church has to say about the matter in a recent press release:

"It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage - a union between a man and a woman. [...] The Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples 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 traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."

The statements by President-elect Obama on same-sex marriage and those by the LDS Church are essentially identical. Seriously. And for what reason are these positions taken? I would argue that they are taken largely "on faith" as it were.

Perhaps, as Khan suggests, "history will eventually disambiguate" that the "hateful laws prohibiting interracial marriage" are "fundamentally equivalent" to those that prohibit gay marriage. It certainly seems that societal norms are heading toward the acceptance of same-sex marriage... especially if you reading the tea leaves (i.e. the voting preferences of the very youngest US voters).

However in the near term, the next President of the United States of America, who is the product of an interracial marriage himself, is not in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. And that, I would presume, trumps every argument against using "faith" as the basis for opposing same-sex marriage. After all, you are either with President-elect Obama, or you are against him.

Blowback for the LDS Church by Anti-Prop 8 Activists
Since Proposition 8 in California passed last week there has been quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth by those that voted against the Proposition in California... as well as by the national pundits, bloggers, and leaders which are ideologically aligned with the California same-sex marriage proponents. The losers are "sore" and I can't say I blame them... polling had Proposition 8 failing by wide margins up until the final couple of weeks before Election Day. In such a liberal state as California, the proposition seemed doomed to fail. In fact, all of the LDS folks that I talked to (my father-in-law, brothers-in-law, etc) while on vacation in Chula Vista - during the weekend that immediately preceded Election Day - did not believe it would pass... despite their personal efforts (and contributions) to support it. When I mentioned a Wall Street Journal article that suggested that the African Americans that Obama was attracting to the voting booths would vote overwhelmingly for Obama and for Prop 8, they just shrugged their shoulders. The writing was on the wall it seemed.

So... what happened?

Well, obviously... it was the result of massive fund-raising (and advertising campaigns) by the "Mormon Church and it's bigoted allies". The Mormons "hate" the gays. QED.

The LDS Church responded to allegations of bigotry and hate last week (see here):

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage - a union between a man and a woman.

Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church's opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.

This statement, of course, has done little to appease the proponents of same-sex marriage... in fact anti-Mormon protests have begun and continue in earnest. Reports of vandalism at LDS private property sites are not uncommon and today letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent to the LDS temple in LA and to the LDS headquarters in SLC, prompting an anti-terrorism investigation by the FBI. Though it will likely be impossible to tie today's chilling actions directly to Anti-Prop 8 activists; yet circumstantially, it's hard to say they aren't related.

Blaming and attacking the Mormons is probably the easiest vector to use to vent the disappointment by same-sex proponents. Who is going to stick up for the (predominantly white) LDS Church after all? Very few people I would imagine. However, a close look at the Prop 8 exit polls reveals a somewhat different story. A large majority of African American voters and a small majority of Hispanic voters supported Prop 8. In fact, some have argued that were it not for the massive turnout of African Americans to vote for Obama as President (voters who coincidentally also voted 7-3 in favor of Prop 8) that Proposition 8 would have not passed... e.g. if Senator Clinton was the Democratic nominee for POTUS, then Prop 8 goes down in flames. Bottom line is that while White voters may be divided on same-sex marriage, African-American voters are generally not - and between them and the Latino vote, Proposition 8 passed (albeit narrowly).

But then, blaming the Blacks and Latinos for the passage of Prop 8 probably does not fit into the narrow world view of many Anti-Prop 8 protesters. In fact, you'll find few people blaming the "Blacks" (and the "Black Churches") and the Latinos, because they don't have the guts to say so (it is politically incorrect after all). The (predominantly) white Mormons make much easier scapegoats after all.

I think the California LGBT community (and their national partners) needs to look a little closer at the reality of what has just occurred.... a reliable Democratic state with a highly diverse population rejects same-sex marriage. Instead of vandalizing and harassing the LDS Church, same-sex proponents should be asking their Democratic Party overlords what happened... starting with the President-elect (who has stated, on record, that he does not support gay marriage).

(Note: originally posted on Facebook.)

Why Passing Prop 8 in California was a "Good Thing"
I'm an active LDS member and have lately had to defend myself and my Church about the Proposition 8 passing in California on Tuesday. On it's face, the passage of Proposition 8 which defined marriage in California as between one man and one woman does not seem fair per se. However, ultimately societies make choices about what kinds of rights are secured by law, what rights are not assisted by law, and what actions are outlawed. These choices usually follow majority cultural and social norms. Cultural norms change slowly because there is much cultural inertia in the US. "That there is just how it is."

We live in a constitutional republic and, as such, the majority rules. Of course, minorities are protected by the Federal and State Constitutions and guaranteed certain rights under the law. But certainly not every right is allowed. For example, the US chose not to secure the rights of Mormons to follow polygamous practices. In fact, the US made it illegal; and the LDS Church soon after disbanded the practice. Was that fair? Perhaps not. But life sometimes isn't fair, and the government sometimes can't make it fair.

Now what of rights not specifically stated in the law? Such as the right to have an abortion or the right to same-sex marriage?

On the one hand there is a group that, in effect, believes that the Courts can "find" new rights based on evolving community standards, and mandate that the people's government secure those rights; in effect, the Courts then have the power to levy a new tax on the people without legislative action. This is what conservatives mean when talking about "judicial activism." Judicial activism essentially makes the Constitution a "living" document - this is a bad thing because a "living" constitution is, in fact, no constitution at all, it's just rule at the whim of whomever currently resides on the court.

On the other hand are folks that believe securing of "new" rights as legitimate only when approved by legislative or plebiscite action.

I subscribe to the political philosophy that rights can only be secured by legislative or plebiscite action primarily because I believe in honoring the fundamental principle of a constitutional republic... that the majority rules, subject only to those minority rights which are written down in the Constitution. If you discover a "new" right that you'd like included, you have available to you the process of amendment (or, uh, succession... or revolution). This involves a lot of work as your fellow citizens must be convinced, by way of persuasion and debate, that your cause is worthy of a majority vote.

With that being said, I shall like to state that were I a resident of California, I would have voted "Yes" on Proposition 8.

The reasons are three-fold.

1. I would have voted "Yes" on Proposition 8 on religious grounds. I am LDS and I believe that marriage is divine, ordained by God as it were, and is reserved for heterosexual relationships. This is not something that can be qualified or quantified scientifically, it is what I believe. Unfair? Perhaps. Untrue? No.

2. Prop 8 should have been enacted to re-assert the power of the people over the role of the Courts, and curb judicial activism as it were - this is a constitutional republic after all (see above). This disturbing trend really needs to stop... and if not now, then when?

3. Finally, much has been made by opponents of Proposition 8 that same-sex couples have been denied a "civil right" to marry due to the "fact" that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice (but is instead biologically determined). However, if I don't believe that homosexuality is biologically determined (it's not), then I suppose that the flip side of the "civil right" argument is that same-sex couples have no such "right to marry".

   Now, my position may seem mystifying to many if not downright moronic to some. But the fact of the matter is that there is no scientific evidence that proves a biological determinant for sexual orientation. The hunt for the so-called "gay gene" has not been successful, and likely never will be. Sexual preference is a choice - a learned behavior - and nothing more. A good summary of the biological research about biology and sexual orientation can be found here:

   Biology and Sexual Orientation

   The association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists sums it up well here:

   "No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.... there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."

It is bewildering to me that the LGBT community continues to pursue for redress via the judicial system. On practical grounds, given the fairly modest defeat incurred on Prop 8, if the LGBT community would use the political process instead of the judicial process to enact their agenda then they would likely have much more success. Had the proponents of gay marriage in California proceeded politically, through persuasion and debate, instead of self-righteous juvenile grandstanding and the arrogance of the Courts, then there is (IMHO) a very good chance that same-sex marriage would quietly be the law of California right now.

Furthermore, it strikes me as completely ridiculous that even yesterday, there were three lawsuits filed against Prop 8's passage. This is not the right time to challenge this judicially. If it must be challenged, then it should be challenged politically, convincing a solid majority of Californians of the same-sex marriage cause. Going judicial rather than political is exactly what landed the California LGBT community in this mess. Before, gay marriage could have been enacted by statute. Now the LGBT community must amend the California State Constitution. Keep pushing and the blow back could be even worse.

As I noted above, there is cultural inertia in America that resists change, basically because people do not like to be told what to do... and especially by non-elected judges. When one persists with judicial activism, people are apt to rebel and harm your interests.

(Note: originally posted on Facebook)

Prop 8 Passes
When I went to bed last night, the controversial California Proposition 8 was leading but had not been called. Well, Prop 8 passed. I must say that as a Latter Day Saint, I'm very pleased with the political and financial muscle that was displayed by the LDS Church. California LDS members (by and large) responded to the Church leadership's call for support and flooded the state with money and put folks on the ground that many cite as the decisive factor in getting the Proposition passed. (Well, that and the pro-Obama African Americans that voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8.) The organization (and motivation) of the California Mormons was unmatched by the opponents of Proposition 8. Kudos.

We just got back from California on Monday where we were on vacation. It was my casual observation that there were likely more Yes (or No) on Prop 8 signs than any other political placards... far outnumbering all other signs on the magnitude of 10 to 1. My father-in-law (who is a Mormon and a lifelong Democrat) had both Democratic candidate signs and a "Yes on Prop 8" sign posted in his front yard. His "Yes on Prop 8" was vandalized while I was there, but his other signs were untouched. Reminds me of the local fanatics around here that run around and tear down any McCain/Palin signs that are posted. What is the point in doing such a thing? Why has the discourse been degraded so far that we no longer respect each others opinions... even when we disagree? I guess I shall blame radical left-wing echo chambers (e.g. The Daily Kos and their ilk), where such opinion squelching is the rule not the exception and name-calling is about as deep as the rhetoric goes (I speak from personal experience). Ah well, I digress.

I saw that at least one lawsuit was filed today by gay-rights advocates that challenges the newly passed proposition as an illegal constitutional revision rather than an amendment. The legal thinking is that the courts will throw out the proposition because, if classified as a constitutional revision, it must gain approval by the California State legislature first (which would be virtually impossible) and then by popular vote second.

Why are the proponents of same-sex marriage seemingly always seeking redress via the court system instead of using the political process to argue their position on its merits with the general public at large? After all, gay marriage was endorsed by seemingly all of the current and former California public office holders and (of course) a long line of movie star figures. And Opposition to Proposition 8 led in the polls (by a wide margin) up until the last few weeks before the election. It seems (to me) that seeking for judicial redress to overturn the will of the people rather than taking the political route is exactly the wrong way to go about it... this is because people (in general) do not like being told what to do (especially by activist judges), and if you try and force them, they'll fight back! And the Mormons in particular!