I'm LOVING this.

"We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right of voters to define marriage in the California Constitution," said Andrew P. Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, the leading group behind the initiative. "The voters have decided this issue and their views should be respected."

-State Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

Mm-hmm.

I wonder if Mr. Pugno and his ilk will feel the same way in a few years when voters reject the next version of Prop 8.

For real, people, read the articles. The 9th Circuit Court conservatives consistently decry as "activist" except for when the court rules in their favor did not rule against same-sex marriage.

I repeat: It did not rule against same-sex marriage. It didn't rule for it, either, but it didn't rule against it.

It ruled that Proposition 8 was an amendment to the state constitution and as an amendment and not a revision, it does not require a 2/3 vote of the legislature.

That's it.

So I hope lawyers like Andrew P. Pugno are ready to celebrate the wonderment that is our system when a sufficient number of voters (not many, by the way) eventually see through the fear mongering and repeal Prop 8.

And when that happens, will they appeal to the 9th Circuit Court? When the Court stays the course and says "Nope, it stands" will those who oppose gay marriage then cry "liberal activist judges!"

...or will they accept the will of the people?

I think I know the answer.

Idiots!

I wanted to share a few quotes from Meet the Press and some Jon Stewart episodes from the past week.

You know, for a guy who isn't a real journalist, he sure as hell is doing a better job than most.

I do have some rather...inciteful posts in my queue right now I'm debating on posting. We'll see. But in the meantime, I want to go back to politics. From April 19th's Meet the Press:

"FMR. REP. DICK ARMEY (R-TX): Well, first of all, I, I want to correct the record. While FreedomWorks did participate and help with the organizing, we had over 800 TEA parties. Now, this is very important. Over 800 TEA parties around the country, with attendance in the hundreds. [yay?] And Atlanta was 15,000. These were almost exclusively organized by volunteer people. I say they were. [well then we will have to take your word for it, huh?] And where FreedomWorks helped with technical assistance, in every TEA party that I was aware of a real person in their real community put it together. Now, what they're concerned about is where it's going to go. Quite frankly, the--most of the people that I talked to at the TEA parties and, and who had that sentiment frankly just simply do not believe that the president is either going to hold the line on spending. Look, he's, he's taken the, the deficit up to $2 trillion and promising to halve it. That still makes it, what, a--twice as big as it was when he started. So the fact of the matter is there's real doubts about him, and taxes must inevitably go up if he's going to grow big government. [Where the hell were these people when Bush was making big government?]

"FMR. REP. HAROLD FORD JR. (D-TN): There was not--but, but, but, Leader, there was not one TEA party in the eight years that President Bush was in office. [I love how they're using the TEA acronym now. Lame!] And this is not meant to litigate the last eight years. But let's be honest, there was a $5 trillion increase in the amount of the, the nation's debt under President Bush. Normally when you use a credit card and you go out and charge things, you're able to show something you got in return. For the last eight years there are no more kids with health care, there are fewer kids who are able to afford college, we have not found new energy sources, and we can make a pretty credible argument that the Middle East is less stable and more dangerous than it was before. I give the president great credit for another attack not occurring on our soil. When we look at the long-term investments and the foundational platform that this president, President Obama is trying to create, one could make a legitimate and I think a compelling argument that in the long run this will produce the new--new investments in energy will produce not only alternatives but less reliance overseas, cheaper energy here at home, a smarter electricity grid, more kids going to college, more people with access to health care, which will lower business costs and allow the economy, for that matter..." (emphasis added)

Let's not forget, John McCain's plan was going to increase the deficit as well.

And besides that, anyone watch Jon Stewart? To quote an overused phrase, I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. Correspondent John Oliver attended a tea bagging party where everyone shouted about tyranny and how "taxation is slavery." I just wanted to beat the utter crap out of these people.

Slavery? Tyranny?

These are the SAME PEOPLE who are running around screaming how we don't know how good we have it. How we don't appreciate our freedom.

Idiots!

I just want to know how many of these teabaggers went out and bought the then half-million dollar houses which are now in foreclosure.

Then Oliver speaks with a teabagger who doesn't understand what "Taxation without Representation" truly is. Basically the conversation went like this:

Reporter: "But you are represented."
Teabagger: "Yeah, well, um. I'm not represented in that my views aren't being represented."

Idiot!

Keep encouraging these people, Faux News. It's making 2012 look much more brighter than it already does.

Teabag the President? Ewww.

How lame is this tea bag thing? Seriously?

Has anyone taken U.S. History 101? Anyone gone to high school? Do they just remember that this had something to do with taxes? Because that’s what the extent of their knowledge seems to be.

Has anyone done their research, or does this just sound like a clever way to get attention?

I have to admit straight out of the gate that I would’ve easily fell into this category of people who knew next to nothing about the Boston Tea Party but remnants of what my high school history course made it into my brain. Back in my conservative days, chances are we would’ve bought our own tea bag to send to the President.

And we would’ve been stupid, stupid, stupid.

What was the Boston Tea Party about? Taxes? Yes. But the similarities truly do stop there.

Back in the mid-Eighteenth century, American colonists were beginning to form a sense of American identity separate from the British. The British didn’t like the potential for a revolt – they wanted the colonists to remain dependent on them so they imposed various tariffs and laws. Following the Seven Years War between America (who the British fought with) and the Indian people, Britain, in an effort to keep any uprisings at bay, kept 10,000 troops in North America. This was an expensive move and Britain needed money.

So they imposed the Sugar Act – a tariff (or tax) on imported sugar to the colonies and moved to make it difficult if not impossible for the colonists to smuggle sugar. The colonists had no say. The courts of vice-admirality used to force these taxes didn’t assume innocence before proven guilty. There was no trial. There was no representation. Therefore “Taxation without representation is tyranny” – James Otis, Massachusetts lawyer.

Britain felt it was only fair for the American colonists to help pay for the costs incurred by the French-Indian/Seven Years War, and so felt no regret for their actions.

To make matters worse, since the colonial taxes remained lower than those in Britain, Britain decided to impose yet another tax in a measure called the Stamp Act. This placed a tax on anything on printed paper (newspapers, letters, licenses, ship papers, playing cards, etc). This stamped paper had to be bought with hard money during a time when the economy wasn’t doing so well.

Britain’s response? “Eh, you’re represented about as well as we are here in Britain. Kinda like how citizens here represent those who cannot vote, such as women, slaves, and children.”

(sounds like us, huh? ugh. we're soooo unrepresented here.)

The colonists hated this response and it only heightened their resolve to fight against “Taxation without representation.” (Yeah, sucks to not have a voice and have yours depend on someone you don’t know/can’t see/have no or little contact with, huh? I wonder if this made anyone think of women’s suffrage if not the black man’s vote. Doubt it.)

And the center of all protests came from…Boston.

The taxes created for a worsening economy adding to the skyrocketing unemployment and inflation rates. Samuel Adams, of the beer brand, became a leader for this movement in Boston, including a group who called themselves the Sons of Liberty, who called for protesting by way of pamphlets and petitions. In time, Britain was unable to enforce the Stamp Act since all stamp distributors had left the area. And the colonists were calling for a halt to importation of goods to pressure Britain who, by 1766, repealed the Stamp Act and reduced the Sugar Act.

But they also made a Declaratory Act which basically said they could do whatever they wanted anytime they wanted. They were just being nice by repealing and reducing those acts, basically. Not backing down.

Britain’s national debt wasn’t going away. Riots and tax protests ensued at the mainland, and Britain cared more for the protests occurring at home than in the colonies which showed in their Revenue Act which called for a tax on imports such as glass, paint, paper and tea.

In October 1767, a meeting in Boston reignited the call for nonimportation as they drew a list of British products to boycott. They called for people to live more frugally and stimulate the local economy, which the small towns are rural areas loved. In time, all colonies but one enacted legislation to ban importing British goods, bringing the value of these imports down by nearly half.

By 1773, Parliament imposed a tax on tea which infuriated the colonists (who loved tea – after all) and incited rebellion and later passed the Tea Act which placed a monopoly on tea to the East India Company, a company ready to collapse in bankruptcy. Parliament didn’t want it to fail and knew the colonists loved their tea as much as they did. In time, the consumption and purchase of tea was seen as an act of treachery.

The Boston Tea Party took place late that November when Bostonians disguised themselves as Indians, boarded the ships, and dumped all the tea into the harbor, pissing off the British and making them question what authority, if any, they still had in the colonies and leading them to other Acts to punish Massachusetts. In time, we'd have the American Revolution.

Sounds just like today, eh?

Anyway, on a fun note: this is why Americans drink coffee and not tea.

See also the New York Times Online: Tax Day Is Met With Tea Parties. (registration required)

and

Brian Schuster on YouTube (Thank you, Project Mayhem!). I am doing my best to keep all my coarse jokes to myself, but Schuster does a good enough job I guess. I much prefer Rachel Maddow or Olbermann.



*Source: Out of Many: A History of the American People, Vol. 1. 5th Ed. 136-142

I didn't want to be the rule.

When I first started this blog, I had all of these same doubts, questions, and the knowledge that I might not be able to hack it.

I didn't want to admit that, though.

When I first began discussing lefty topics with fellow LDS on Facebook, I did so to feel a sense of community. The good people there gave me strength. I thought maybe I could do this, that who I am doesn't have to contradict the Church, that maybe I was wrong concerning everything and could be a middle-roader without sacrifice.

Numerous faithful, liberal members of the Church fight valiantly against sweeping generalizations that one cannot be a liberal Mormon and yet a good Mormon. Some succeed better than others. It's a hard fight to be made in a Church which seems to pride itself on being rooted in "family values," in being "pro-life" etc. and can't see past their ideological noses. Funny, really, because the Church is technically pro-choice and is based on as many liberal ideals as conservative. But whatever. Nobody wants to see that.

When I first began this blog, a girl from my stake came by to discover I support Obama, I am Pro-Choice, and I thought Prop 8 was a load of crap. She said something to the effect of "Except Obama, everything you just said goes against the Church!" These are basic stances many liberal members have and must contend with, along with a very real questioning of our faith and worthiness. This is the reason many choose to remain in the closet. I daresay this is why so many of us became so aggressive when it came to Prop 8. In our own way, we know what it's like to be shoved into a closet.

Over time, though, I weakened. My doubts raised to a piercing scream I couldn't ignore anymore. Knowing that my bishop could find this blog and call me in for expressing my opinion and discipline really rubbed my fur the wrong way. It's happened to too many others. Good members everywhere have walked into their bishop's offices where they were asked to shut down their blog. One commenter at The Faithful Dissident's recent post says his bishop told him he wouldn't sign his temple recommend based on his blog. He shut it down. Call me prideful, but there's something seriously wrong with that. I don't think I could shut mine down. Not in good conscience.

Freedom of expression, shut down. There's a reason so many abhor censorship - it brings to mind far too many things I'd learned in school, so much history we'd rather never happened. We live in America where we are supposed to be free to express our own beliefs. Without America, we would have no Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I should be able to say I respectfully disagree and why without fear of rebuke. I should be able to discuss why I think marrying gay couples won't be the end of society as we know it and encourage people to reconsider their vote.

But, one might say, if you don't believe, why are you here?

This is my eternal soul, that's why. For so long I fought against the cultural crap - I could sweat the culture. I could rally against and scream about it all I wanted. There are some things about LDS culture I really love but most of it just sucks. But this is my church, I've been grafted to it. This deals with my eternal soul. I believed in enough for it to matter.

I didn't want to be this stereotypical liberal Mormon girl on the precipice of apostasy. I wanted to be an activist of sorts, change minds. I've never wanted to be an activist for anything until this past year. I wanted to be an example, so the first time I expressed serious doubt with the Church. I thought great, so much for being an example. But I couldn't keep pretending. That wasn't fair.

The Faithful Dissident says that without the courageous gay community who fought for so long to have others know their orientation is not a choice, that without courageous Mother's Who Don't Know fighting against the June Cleaver or Die mold, that without activist members this church never would have changed. And despite what many orthodox members will insist to the contrary, this Church does change.

I wanted to be part of that so much. I'm a martyr. I would be more than willing to fight except I don't really believe this anymore, not enough of it at least. I could still attend (and do) without being "worthy" of the temple, but...I would be willing to pay tithing if I could and if I believed in what I was investing my money in. It's not really a matter of faith. I would be willing to avoid coffee, tea, and alcohol if...well, as stupid as it is to make a point to drink this stuff, it's just as stupid to make a point not to drink it. I could give it up, though. Much as the garment top bugs the absolute shit out of me, I would wear it. These things matter about as much as they don't in the eternal scheme of things, and instead of worrying about the piddly crap, I'd rather spend my time focusing on other things that will make me a better person because I've so far to go. So that's what I'm doing.

This is the church that most closely mirrors my lifelong beliefs. BUT! sometimes the best form of protest is the one we make with our feet. I have a difficult time believing God would place me on the same shelf as the man who couldn't give up everything he had and follow Christ because I have an occasional cup of coffee - and no, I was never addicted to the stuff (though I freely admit addiction to soda).

My bishop knows I'm having a crisis of faith. At least that's what I told him. The truth is I've been having a crisis of faith for four years now; my husband for the last eight - I didn't even know about his doubts until I expressed my own. The truth is I'm at my end. I requested release from my calling as a Relief Society teacher because I couldn't stand up there and do what I could to show these girls that the norm isn't always the best way, that there are good people outside the church, that the culture doesn't always jive with the doctrine. I couldn't stand the material, of people trying to sound biblical instead of like regular members of the human race who are trying just as hard as I am.

They are no better than me and I am no better than them.

I never wanted to be the rule. I wanted to be the exception, but sometimes it's not worth the fight, not worth the mental abuse one has to go through. I've a family. I worry about enough things. I guilt trip myself, I don't need any help.

There are good, liberal Mormons out there who do believe and have testimonies. I just don't know what I have to add anymore but more of the same, more validation to the idiots' belief that "Liberal Mormons aren't Good Mormons." They do exist, and they're amazing people with very valid views and concerns. I hope more members accept them and give their ideas a moment of their time. I wasn't always like this. I used to be a Limbaugh girl - it was because I listened to other views that I began to change my mind. Not everyone will, but acceptance is all we ask for. We need each other, after all - apostate or not.

Piercings, Beards, and other Pharisaical “Encouragements”

Yes, the damn piercings. Again. I know. I’ve been simmering for a good rant, and I’ll warn you right now: it’s a rant. Offense may happen. Unpleasant language. I could get rid of it, but at the moment I really don't want to. Some may also find it negative - I do. I also criticise a leader.

Consider yourselves forewarned and please keep the comments thereof private. Again: This is a rant. Thanks.

I have to get this out. I’ve had more than one person suggest this isn’t so much doctrine as it is encouragement if not expectation of our leaders. But this is, as I’ll show in a minute, not just some off the cuff remark because back in the day girls just didn’t wear more than one earring (and certainly no where but the ear) and boys – well, that’s just…weird.

To the uninformed,

Sister Bednar and I are acquainted with a returned missionary who had dated a special young woman for a period of time. He cared for her very much, and he was desirous of making his relationship with her more serious. He was considering and hoping for engagement and marriage. This relationship was developing during the time that President Hinckley counseled the Relief Society sisters and young women of the Church to wear only one earring in each ear.

The young man waited patiently over a period of time for the young woman to remove her extra earrings, but she did not take them out. This was a valuable piece of information for this young man, and he felt unsettled about her nonresponsiveness to a prophet’s pleading. For this and other reasons, he ultimately stopped dating the young woman, because he was looking for an eternal companion who had the courage to promptly and quietly obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times. The young man was quick to observe that the young woman was not quick to observe.

- Elder David A. Bednar, Quick to Observe, December 2006 Ensign.

To anyone who does not consider themselves Molly or Peter (or to the non-member), this is ridiculous. To a newly zealous member or reinvigorated member, this is wise counsel. This is a faith-promoting story. Do the piercings matter? Noooo. But following the prophet at all times does.

*hits head on desk*

Sorry, but if these ears could hold piercings without infection and I had three or four, I’d keep them. It would be of no disrespect to President Hinckley, but I hardly believe God cares if I have two earrings in one ear. For that matter, I used to want to pierce my eyebrow. If that was still something I wanted, such a story would propel me to get the piercing. This kind of petty stuff serves only to encourage rebelliousness and guilt to those who feel the way I do. "Geez, would I take mine out? What would Elder Bednar think?"

Because it's not about the piercing, is it?

I presume that some of you might have difficulty with my last example. You may believe the young man was too judgmental or that basing an eternally important decision, even in part, upon such a supposedly minor issue is silly or fanatical. Perhaps you are bothered because the example focuses upon a young woman who failed to respond to prophetic counsel instead of upon a young man. I simply invite you to consider and ponder the power of being quick to observe and what was actually observed in the case I just described. The issue was not earrings! (continued from article cited above)

Yes, I believe the young man was too judgmental and I would indeed add fanatical. I might even call Elder Bednar slightly fanatical for bringing it up along with other stories he speaks of in the same talk. We are worrying about the stupidest things. It’s an earring!

If I were that young woman’s friend, I would quickly tell her how lucky she is that her guy showed his true colors before they married. Can you imagine? What if she took a few extra steps on a Sunday? Okay, okay. Hyperbole. But how's this: What if she…now sit down…had an energy drink? *gasp*

I at least hoped this guy talked to the girl beforehand. Oy vey. “Sorry honey, it’s me or the earring.”

Now before anyone throws a fit, I get it. I really, really do and I really, really resent the implied guilt trip pointed at anyone who is doing everything they can – reading the scriptures, attending meetings, honest, chaste, true, benevolent, etc, etc -- and yet has an extra earring. Nothing, nothing is mentioned about this girl's character. Just her unwillingness to take out an earring.

Are we really this nitpicky? What really matters here?

I think the thing that bothers me most about this is that Elder Bednar spoke about it, and not just in the Ensign. This was originally spoken of at a BYU Devotional. Many consider the Ensign to be Scripture when an authority is the author. These little anecdotes only feed the Molly and Peter fires that take the general membership away from the message of CHRIST. For heaven’s sake, can’t we puh-lease talk about Christ instead of these stupid earrings or even the Prophet?

It is because of talks like these that young men and women (and grown men and women) are judged not on their character or heart but on a fucking earring. As an apostle, I would hope Elder Bednar would rather speak of how we can become more charitable. I would rather he spoke about Christ.

Earrings.

And don’t even get me started on beards. Someone suggested this is a BYU thing – well, not exactly. It’s not necessarily church wide, but I can't seem to remember ever seeing a General Authority sporting a good beard, at least not in the last thirty to forty years. In my stake, any male being extended a leadership call (boy scouts, YM, EQ, etc) are asked “How attached are you to that beard?”

My SIL, a very active faithful member, bristles when she tells this story. Nobody asked her, she says. It’s part in jest, but she likes her husband’s beard. Her husband, a laid back guy, doesn’t care. Out comes the razor. Heaven forbid a boy see his leader with a goatee, especially if he's aware - what does it say? What will others think?

I have a good idea of what he'll think: he'll grow up thinking anyone who has a beard is somehow unworthy.

I get that the outside should reflect the inside and we often assume it does – and most times we’re *wrong*. Lest I’m misunderstood, though, I get that it’s important to be clean. I get the importance in dressing nicely when we’re representing the Church (because we understand that when we represent the Church, we are effectively representing Christ. At least that’s how it’s been explained to me). It all makes sense, but if the beard is clean and the earrings aren’t ridiculous than who cares.

Moving on. Deep breath.

Tattoos. Many of our members sport a good tattoo (I'd like to know more who do!). I am curious to know if we have any members - men and women - who have tat sleeves. Are they called to leadership positions? Oh sure as long as it’s covered, but again: women. Would we ever have a Relief Society president who sported a couple tats on her arm (inked before her conversion), tats impossible to cover up? Would we insist on long sleeves each Sunday regardless of weather?

I’m not being facetious; this is for real. We are not to be robots. We’re not to be stepford children of God, there to emit the impression of perfection. We have this weird preoccupation of striving for perfection in a futile journey to be just like Christ in this life. If we were supposed to look the same, it would probably have showed up in scripture somewhere.

And this, I think, is where some of the “avoid the appearance of evil” crap comes from.

Enough with perfection! Should we go nuts? No! But allow a person some self-expression. Allow a person a tattoo if it helps them remember something that is important to them (watch Miami or LAInk if you don’t know what I’m talking about. TLC). Allow a person an earring for heaven’s sake without having to question their loyalty to…who again? The prophet?

I’m sorry, but I think our focus is a little skewed. We talk about the churchchurchchurch. We are to give all we can to the effing church, not to Him whom this Church is supposed to represent.

If you look hard enough, Christ is in all of us. Piercings, beards, tats and all.

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder why I have any hair left at all.

Avoiding the Appearance of Evil is Stupid

"Abstain from all appearances of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5:22)

"Since there are no harmless flirtations and there is no place for jealousy after marriage, it is best to avoid the very appearance of evil by shunning any questionable contact with another to whom we are not married."

- President James E. Faust, April 2007 Ensign: First Presidency Message: Enriching Your Marriage (emphasis added)

"Believing involves faith and good works. We cannot be passive; we must actively avoid evil. This means that we do not trifle with sacred things. Families in this day and time should not only avoid evil but avoid the very appearance of evil. To combat these influences families must have family prayer, family home evening, and family scripture study."

- President James E. Faust. November 1997 Ensign: Pioneers of the Future: Be Not Afraid, Only Believe. Reprinted in the July 1998 New Era. (emphasis added)

"The best counsel I ever received about staying away from the edge came when, as a young married man, President Harold B. Lee called me to be a member of a bishopric. He said, 'From now on, you must not only avoid evil, but also the appearance of evil.' He did not interpret that counsel. That was left to my conscience."

- President James E. Faust, November 1995 Ensign: Acting for Ourselves and Not Being Acted Upon (emphasis added)

Appearances by Sheila Kindred in the November 2002 Friend uses a story to illustrate the dangers in encouraging the appearance of evil. Fresh from their Boy Scout meeting, a little boy and his friend waited in the parking lot for their parents. One boy jokingly put a piece of chalk to his mouth and quipped “Yeah. Look at me, I’m cool.” A car full of rowdy teenagers drove by at that moment and cheered. A member of the boys’ ward happened by also and, shocked, made sure to inform the boy’s mom. After the boy cleared himself of all misconceptions, his mother suggested he call the mistaken ward member to apologize for his actions.

I could go on with the amount of Ensign/New Era/and Friend articles that deal with this idea, but it would be a very long list. If you're interested, here it is.

I don't want to seem as criticising our leaders (heaven forbid!) - instead, I am criticising an idea our leaders and many members have adopted.

The first quote I listed was scripture. How do you argue with or even rationalize scripture? By using the footnotes, apparently.

Footnote "b" for "appearances" states, "GR kinds. TG. Apparel."

Let's rephrase that scripture then: Abstain from all kinds of evil.

I have to give credit where due, I first heard this idea at Soy Made Me Gay: Soundbyte Doctrine. The idea of avoiding the appearance of evil always struck me stupid, but I didn’t know there was scriptural support for it. Yay!

The second quote refers to our neuroticism as a church in hanging out with opposite sex friends. Of course we shouldn’t hang out with someone we are attracted to - that’s not a good idea, but I do think President Faust overstepped the mark here. Wouldn’t it have been enough to simply state “We should shun any questionable contact with another to whom we are not married”?

As in, don’t place your hand on another’s thigh.

Some years ago I had to attend church alone. I showed up at the same time as an old guy friend of mine, and we ended up walking in together, talking. Down the aisle in the chapel we went, a bit late, and my insides knotted. What if they think we’re together? What if they think I’m cheating on my husband?

Who the hell cares what “they” think?

I'm tired of worrying about what other people think and I'm tired of having others tell me I ought to concern myself with what other people think. I do that well enough on my own, thankyouverymuch.

But the appearance of evil doesn’t stop there. Consider this familiar scenario: Work is having an office party. The boss asks you to make a store run, and as you leave someone shouts, “Can you grab a case of beer while you’re out?”

Now you’re left with a dichotomy: Get the beer because, well, it’s not for you to use or judge those who do, and you won’t drink. But is buying the beer a matter of condoning bad, yea, even “immoral” behavior?

That’s an individual decision. Many will decide to not get the case of beer. I’ve had one reader state she wouldn’t due to her hatred for alcohol – she feels against facilitating its use. That’s fine.

My issue comes with this excuse: ”I don’t want to give the wrong impression. What if an investigator, new member, or ward member is in the store and sees me? What will they think?”

What the hell does it matter?

I’m unsure as to others, but in my stake I’ve heard leaders preach avoiding the appearance of evil over the pulpit because someone might see you and, knowing you’re a member, think bad things about the Church (ah! they do drink!) or decide that they don’t want to associate with a church that does not practice what they preach when of course we do!

This strikes me as a very PR stance. I’ve had people suggest before that the individual matters less than the image of the church. Screw that.

Christ hung out with the prostitutes, the publicans, the lepers. He spoke the parable of the Good Samaritan. Everyone but the Samaritan concerned themselves more with the law and appearances rather than actually following Christ and doing that which was right.

We worry too much about ourselves and not nearly enough about other people - and I mean more in the sense of how others will see us versus the needs of our fellow man. What matters more? Our image or our neighbor?

In hanging out with the sinners, even Christ was misunderstood. The people concerned themselves too much with the law, with appearances, with the letter rather than the spirit of what Christ spoke of, of what God would want.

"The Son of man is come eating and drinking, and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!" (Luke 7:34)

Should Christ have avoided the appearance of evil?

Should we?

If we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, we need to be willing to get in the dirt with them. We have to be willing to chance a little gossip at church, perhaps a bit of a bad rap. In the end, what God thinks matters most. Not the girls in Relief Scoiety, not my bishop, not even the prophet (gasp!). As long as I know what I’m doing and God knows what I’m doing, I’m fine. Misconceptions can be cleared up, but sometimes gossip persists and I can’t control that. I’ve better things to do with my time.

If a person wants to judge me or my kid based on appearance only, than so be it. That’s not my problem. I wouldn’t make my kid apologize to anyone in a situation like the one discussed in the Friend. The woman gave the other mom a head’s up, and I’ve no issue with that, but I certainly wouldn’t compel my kid to apologize when he or she did nothing wrong.

And I certainly wouldn’t guilt trip my kid about keeping up “good” appearances. That’s a load of crap.

*Also posted at Feminist Mormon Housewives

WHO CARES if we're Christian!

Are Mormons Christians? Holy CRAP I'm tired of this one.

Does it really matter what the world calls us? Does the title matter? I don't mean to make this a blog entry consisting entirely of questions - none of which are hypothetical - but seriously now. General Conference talks have been based on this. We're all very concerned about the rest of the world accepting us into the realm of Christendom.

Let me ask you something: Is the title of Christian requisite for admission into God's Kingdom? I get that, without this understanding, conversion for those who belong to other Christian denominations might prove rather difficult. But it's hardly central to salvation to have the title.

The fundamental belief of all Christian people is that Christ is our savior. To us, it's rather obvious.

To others, not so much.

But does it matter what others think? If the Gospel is true and we know what we teach and believe in, what does it matter?

I worry this is too much a PR move. We've a long, glorious history of ostracism, persecution, and other such lovely things. People like to spit that we believe in a "different" Christ - and we laugh. A different Christ? How many could there possibly be?

Other churches see us as cultish. Our doctrines are not only strange to many but border on blasphemous (if not entirely blasphemous). This hurts our image. We want common ground to help our image so we can be of better good in the world. I understand that.

What I don't understand is how much energy we've spent on the subject. Please like us. We believe in Christ, too. Look! It's in the name of our church (and while we're on the subject, just where is Christ's name in your church?). We're taking the defensive role where there's really no reason for it. Our penecostal or evangelical (or even Catholic) friends will not be the ones to let us through the gates of heaven. Why we act like they will be is beyond me.

Why expend so much energy in trying to convince others otherwise? Yes there's plenty misinformation out there - people will believe anything negative about us, but this whole idea of jumping up and down with the proclamation that we are Christian too (RU Christian 2?) seems a little needless and silly.

Face it. We are not part of the mainstream Christian group. We don't believe in the Trinity, we believe God has a body, we believe Christ came to America, that baptism is essential and we put more emphasis on works than do other Christian churches (this is especially offensive to them, though it is largely misunderstood). Hell, there is unofficial speculation that Christ likely married. These ideas are seen as heretical and are thus rejected by mainstream Christians, and that is why they don't believe us to be Christian.

I just can't get rid of the image of a bunch of kids out in the playground, some calling one child "stupid" or a "baby." Does the name calling make it so? No. If we are secure in our own standing with God and his Son, than all we have to do is smile and say "Well, go ahead and think that. I know who I am and who I worship" and walk away.

So let's get over it. Let's preach about more important things. Let's worry less about acceptance and more about our personal relationship with Christ, shall we?


(bytheby, I may not post much if at all this weekend as I won't be home very much. I hope everyone has a good one!)

Black Friday

I don't know how many of you have heard this horrific story, but I'll keep it short. I'm sure this is everywhere.

A Walmart greeter was trampled to death yesterday morning as a literal stampede of people knocked him down in their fury to get the latest and greatest deal.

Ahhh, Capitalism.

But this entry isn't about that. I'm pretty sure we're all smart enough to get what this does speak to - materialism, Christmas over consumerism, etc. The fact that we're so intent on getting what we want that we don't even notice we're trampling a man to death. Literally.

I figured we'd all understand that, and then I read this article.

Here's an excerpt:

"This incident was avoidable," said Bruce Both, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500. "Where were the safety barriers? Where was security? ... This is not just tragic; it rises to a level of blatant irresponsibility by Wal-Mart."


Wal-Mart said it had added additional internal security, third party security, more store associates and had worked closely with local police. "We also erected barricades. Despite all of our precautions, this unfortunate event occurred," Hank Mullany, a Wal-Mart senior vice president, said in a statement.

So we're blaming Walmart for this? Not the mindset of the people? I don't know everything, but I'm just having a hard time wanting to blame the company. I know we all want Walmart and like companies to have a labor union (they don't as of right now right?) but this isn't where our focus should be. Let's not politicize this. A man died a brutal death at the onset of the Christmas season. Joy to the World, Peace and Goodwill to all Men.

Right?

We need to be screaming about the people who didn't give a shit enough. The mob mentality all for a good deal. Like others have said, there is nothing, absolutely nothing in that store that was worth a man's life.

Forget about Walmart. Let's stop blaming Walmart. I'm more concerned about the mentality of these people. Apparently some shoppers were pissed off when the store announced it would be closing because of the fresh tragedy. Others were trampled as some attempted to help the man.

Wow.

My heart and thoughts go out to this man's family. What a horrible, horrible way to begin the best season of the year

$400 a month.

First of all, I'm still not done hearing answers. I'm especially interested in hearing about ex- or less/in-active members' experiences with their inactivity in the Church - how people react.

I happen to think members react differently than they know is appropriate.

But please, keep responding to yesterday's post. I'm insanely curious.

Anyway. I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent today. I just finished reading a blog entry where a woman, my age, describes her boyfriend. He seems to be schitzophrenic. When he is not on his medication (forgets to refill or something) he often begins "hears voices" and speaks often of killing himself and occasionally the need to kill others. What kills is that sometimes he can't get his medication. Want to know why?

His medication costs $400 a month.

$400 a month!

Now, I'm unsure as to their insurance situation but it suffices to say that not everyone has insurance. Not everyone has the chance to work at a job that offers benefits. Not everyone has the chance to go to school to get those jobs that do offer benefits (and even some of those jobs fail to offer them. Why? Because insurance is unbelievably expensive. See above example.)

For the sake of argument, lets say above guy is uninsured. Let's say, then, that he decides to get insurance. Problem solved, right?

Nope.

Seriously, now. It's like she wrote: her boyfriend getting his medication is in society's best interest.

$400.

A month.

My rent used to be $400 a month. Granted it was seven years ago, but still. I've never even spent that much for a frickin' car payment.

Unbelievable.

And people still insist our healthcare system is the best in the world.

Unbelievable.

'Tis the Season for Political Correctness

I'm taking a break from Prop 8 stuff. For now, haha.

I received an email the other day from my dad. He never fails to send me the funniest damn emails on the planet, but sometimes he'll send some thought-provoking or one of those that attempt to tug at your heart strings. I'll freely admit when it comes to such emails I cut my heart strings.

Anyway.

Yesterday's was a statement from Ben Stein. You know Ben. "Bueller....Bueller...Bueller...Bueller..."

He's an incredibly intelligent man with the incredibly monotonous voice. I think he even hosted a TV show on Comedy Central.

Anyway.

If you didn't know already, the man is Jewish - and it's getting to be that time of year for Hanukkah.

And Christmas.

And Kwanzaa.

And Winter Solstice.

For years upon years, the day after Thanksgiving gave us license to walk along snow powdered streets and greet each passerby with a cheerful "Merry Christmas!" and nobody gave a crap. In fact, they probably said "Merry Christmas!" right back at ya.

Because it's that time of year.

Cities erect Christmas trees in their downtown squares, garlands, lights, etc. It really is a neat time of year.

Then, some years ago, a group of people started getting pissed off. "I don't celebrate Christmas, I'm Jewish! Say Happy Holidays!" (and no, I'm not blaming the Jewish people for this)

Before you know it, everyone is in a fuss. Walmart insists on saying "Happy Holidays" and so some of their customers boycott the business during this season - and if they don't, they puff up their chests and spit "Merry Christmas" right back as if to make some point.

Some businesses, for "tradition's" sake, insist on saying "Merry Christmas" and refuse the more generalized "Happy Holidays" because they won't be caught dead being politically correct.

And suddenly, the coolest, prettiest, friendliest time of the year has turned ugly.

GET OVER IT.

I know, I know. For so long people accepted that Christ was the "reason for the season." But as some - perhaps most - of you know, Christmas has its roots in paganism. Not Christ's birth, not at all. Most biblical scholars will tell you Christ was absolutely not born in the dead of winter. I might get more into this later.

Like most holidays (Easter included), Christmas has many paganistic symbols. I mean, you can explain away the star on top of the tree (the star that led the "three wise men" to Christ), you can explain away the gifts (the wise men offered gold, frankincense, and myrrh to the newborn Christ), but the tree? Stockings?

Santa Claus?

Come on now.

But I digress. Again.

'Tis the season also for our Jewish friends to celebrate the miracle of Hanukkah, for some of our African-American friends to celebrate their heritage/culture with Kwanzaa, for our heathen-pagan friends (sarcasm alert) to celebrate the shortest day of the year.

Should we really put up a fuss about how we choose to greet one another?

I don't think so.

If someone said "happy Hanukkah" to me, I'd smile and return the greeting. It's the intention behind the words, people.

I don't really care what someone says to me. To stomp my feet and throw a tantrum in the insistence that people say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" is rather childish. I'm just glad someone's in the spirit of the season. To say "and a happy holidays to you too" or "and a merry Christmas to you" is kinda like flipping someone the bird. Get over yourselves. Just return it. They were being nice.

Really. We should cut the crap. It's distracting. You people ruin this time of year for me with your whining. I know it's not "cool" to be politically correct, and I like to make fun of PCisms too, but this is just ridiculous.

Not everyone celebrates Christmas.

Not everyone who celebrates Christmas does so because of Christ.

Some people don't even believe in Christ as the Son of God, but they believe in God, so they celebrate Hanukkah.

Some people think all that religion crap is lame and they'd rather leave it alone entirely and celebrate the time of year.

Hell, some people don't even celebrate holidays period, like our Jehovah's Witness friends. They are hep to the pagan roots and want nothing to do with them.

(and yes, I actually do find it rather lame and silly to call city Christmas trees "holiday trees." They can have a city Menorah if they want. Really. Get over it.)

I don't believe in insisting we greet one another in one way or the other, but to do it one way or not do it one way as a matter of making a point is, again, lame. We can at least recognize that this is a special time of year for those who don't believe in Christ. Be kind. Just smile and nod if that's all you can do. Leave people be.

So Happy Holidays everyone. Whatever holiday it happens to be you're looking forward to, I hope it's an awesome one.

Give 'em Donuts

I've considered, like many other blogs have, of self-imposing a Prop 8 moratorium on my blog, but I know myself better than that. I was hoping it would all "fly away" once November 5th hit, but we've seen how that worked. I imagine even if it failed, I'd still be ranting about stupidities within my own culture.

Like this one: The Church didn't donate 40% of the funds toward Proposition 8. Its members did.

Oh if this weren't as stupid as it initially doesn't sound.

I love this. We're quick most other times to refer to the general membership as "The Church" but the minute we start getting backlashes from our own actions, we break it down until it's no longer The Church, but just its members acting innocently of their own accord - as if The Church had nothing to do with it.

I ask you: How many members do you think would have donated without the call for donations? Not nearly as many.

It was a loophole. The Church, The Church could not have donated more than the $2,000 and change it did without explicitly threatening its tax-exemption. So they asked the members to. And it wasn't enough to pass out donation papers in Priesthood or Relief Society, no. They left papers out in the foyer too. Sometimes people were called into Bishop's or Stake President's offices to donate.

So shut up about that. I'm so sick of us trying to toss the blame off The Church. The Church asked us to donate not just our time, but our "means" (read: money). The Church called on our consciences about following the Prophet. Sometimes every Sunday.

And that, everyone, is what "they" are pissed off about. That is why they are outside our temples and our stake centers and ward buildings. We have an influence unmatched when called by our Prophet, and people know that.

I think it might be nice to offer protesters some donuts or something - and no, I'm not being facetious. If I lived in an area where protesters abounded (and hell, I'm tempted to take a trip to Oakland just to do this), I'd give 'em coffee too.

A show of respect. Let's show some effing respect. It might just go a long way. All this bickering is beyond childish, and it shames me.

Enough with the "well, we only make up 2% of the vote. It's the Hispanics and the African-Americans who did this to you."

SHUT UP.

Suddenly we're so quick to shift blame, to point fingers. Are you insinuating the protesters (uncivil with their civil) should go bug the crap out of other people? I assure you they are. We're just so intent on being persecuted for our beliefs - I do think part of us longs for the persecution of the earlier Saints - that we're going to cry if the wind shifts. I think we like the PR; really, the PR department must be beside themselves with all the attention. We like having other Churches see that we stand up for "family" (I still don't get this). We like being in the spotlight. As much as it sucks, we know that in the Christian world, persecution is like God patting us on the head. In the Christian world, those who are most persecuted are believed to be the most right (and righteous). And we've been whining an awful lot lately about our persecutions, making sure everyone knows. Poor us.

Get over it. Wave to these people. Give 'em a donut. The more angry of them might throw it away, but most of them, I promise you, just want us to respect them. Treat them the same way you'd like to be treated. They're not that scary.

If you truly believe in what you did, this should not be a problem.

It's the end of the world as Dr. James Dobson knows it

We apparently are not alone in having a prophet.

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family also seems to have a bit of clairvoyant talent - or at least a time travel machine. This sixteen page letter, itemizing every Obama repercussion from talk radio to child pornography was written (or will be written?) in 2012 by "A Christian."

Now, it's a little late now, and for that I apologize. If only more voters would have been made privy to this letter prior to voting for Barack Obama, we would be spared so many awful things. So far, the predictions have come true. Senator Obama is now President-elect Obama, after all.

First, understand that a vote for Barack Obama means a new far-left democratic majority in the U.S. Supreme Court. The three conservative justices left are going to be called "originalists" because, unlike liberals, they adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution. These "originalists" argued, in vain far too many times it seems, that their job as Justices is to interpret the Constitution, not come up with heretical new laws. That's the job of the heretical liberal Congress.

So, if you ever wondered how the world would come to a crashing end, Dr. James Dobson and Co. would like to enlighten you:

1. The most far reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court’s stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual ‘marriage’ was a “constitutional right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex ‘marriage’ violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution…This was a blatant example of creating law by the court, for homosexual ‘marriage’ was mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nor would any of the authors have imagined that same-sex ‘marriage’ could be derived from their words.

Huh. I didn't know marriage was mentioned at all in the Constitution.

2. The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys.

Forced to seek out homosexual scoutmasters. I can just imagine any interview that may go on:

"So. Are you gay?"

"Duh, of course."

"Hired."

"So, what are you doing Friday night?"

Come on! This would ask that a person NOT discriminate based on sexual orientation - which, sorry, should be the case.

And besides all of that, why is it okay to imply a homosexual man would try to get it on with "young boys"? Are we really intent to perpetuate this myth that all gay men are pedophiles?

Wow.

I mean, I get it. You wouldn't allow a grown man to sleep in a tent with young girls. You'd have the adults (all of them) sleep in...that's right, different tents. Not necessarily for the protection of the kids so much as for the protection of the adults as well. Easy enough. Moving on.

3. Elementary schools now include compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of homosexuality as one personal choice.

I still don’t get this. Should we instead continue to pretend homosexuality doesn’t exist? The schools, and I know this because my husband is going through the end process of becoming a teacher in California, understand how important it is to be a safe place.

Not talking about it in the schools won’t help. The schools need to help children understand and respect people, and you should too. Now, I don’t know that we’re going to have a conversation like this going on, but I mean, “A Christian” from the future seems to think it's likely, so I guess we can’t totally rule it out:

“Here’s Jack and Jill. They have ‘traditional’ sex.

“Here’s Dan and Dean. They have really cool ‘gay’ sex. It’s pretty awesome, actually. You should try it sometime. Here are some pictures!”

No.

This is more about respecting different people. And uh, if you live in California, you do have the right to opt your child out of comprehensive sex education. If your state doesn't allow it, you can work to have that changed. America is pretty cool that way.

4. The Freedom of Choice Act also reversed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, so infants can be killed outright just seconds before they would be born.

I think this is a nod to the "present" vote Obama gave as a Senator - uhm, yeah. Like he said, it was already law that you couldn't do it, and he didn't want to compromise Roe v. Wade. Me thinks Focus on the Family shot itself in the foot here.

And really, does anyone really believe this will happen? Anyone?

...
You might be surprised to read what will happen regarding Iraq, Russia, Iran, and Israel (Tel Aviv gets bombed, apparently. Huh)
...

5. Euthanasia is becoming more and more common.

Because Obama decided to introduce Universal Healthcare, after all, and it really sucks. Old people are thought more and more to have a duty to go home and die. I'll bet this news would thrill Dr. Kevorkian who could just set up practice specifically for speeding up the process.

6. Gas costs more than $7 per gallon, and many Democrats openly applaud this, since high prices reduce oil consumption and thus reduce carbon dioxide output.

I realize I'm not a registered Democrat, but as a liberal leaning heretic, I'm all for $7 a gallon gas. I was getting a little too excited - if you know what I mean - the day we paid $4.70 for a gallon of gas here in California - so close to $5 a gallon! SO CLOSE!

7. As a result, all radio stations have to provide equal time to contrasting views for every political or policy-related program they broadcast by talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity…and broadcasters like Dr. James Dobson. Every conservative talk show is followed by an instant rebuttal to the program by a liberal ‘watchdog’ group. Many listeners gave up in frustration, advertising (and donation) revenues dropped dramatically…Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010.

We're going to force conservative talk radio out of business for...offering the other side? I hate it when that happens.

Now, I know some of you might be waiting to hear about how electing Obama will lead to legalization of child pornography. It is not on the .pdf version of the document, but it is on this document. Why it's gone on the other version, I don't know. But it's worth reading. I really hope this isn't what people think.

8. In addition, law enforcement officials can no longer stop the distribution of child pornography, after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the such distribution violated freedom of speech and interstate commerce laws.

Yeah. I don't get this one either. Maybe it was deleted in the .pdf document because it's just so ridiculous. At least I hope so.


Of course, the letter concedes,

Christians share a lot of the blame. In 2008, many evangelicals thought Senator Obama was an opportunity for ‘change,’ and they voted for him. They did not realize Obama’s far-Left agenda would take away many of our freedoms, perhaps permanently (it is unlikely the Supreme Court can be changed for perhaps 30 years. Christians did not realize that by electing Barack Obama – rated the most liberal U.S. senator in 2007 – they would allow the law, in the hands of a liberal Congress and Supreme Court, to become a great instrument of oppression.

But, I mean, Dr. James Dobson wouldn't really want the Supreme Court majority to belong to ultra-conservative right wing Republicans, would he?

Would he?

As a last note, I'd like to offer this quote from Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, regarding the 1800 election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams:

"The other side - the Adam's people - said [Jefferson] was a 'howling atheist'...they said if he won, that rape and incest and murder would be taught in schools. Finally this Connecticut newspaper apologized in 1993."

Everyone's a prophet.

Projecting Racism

I've gotta wonder.

The more I hear people spew their diatribes about how those who voted for Barack Obama voted purely, or at least mostly, because he is black the more I want to ask why it's such a point of focus for so many.

Seriously. I swallow a scream down about every time.

People! Stop listening to John McCain, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh (to think I used to listen to that man), and Karl freaking Rove. If you honestly believe Fox News is "fair and balanced," I've got a couple bridges to sell you. To nowhere.

When I was investigating the church, a common quip was "You don't go to a Chevy dealer to find out about Ford."

The same applies anywhere else. You don't go to radical conservatives to find out about Barack Obama. It transcends stupidity, to be honest.

I really wish people would afford Obama's supporters with a bit more intelligence and discretion than "you voted for him 'cause he's black." I also appreciated Limbaugh's lovely summation of Colin Powell's endorsement: "It's all about race!"

Gee, thanks, Rush. And everyone else who echoed his sentiments.

It makes me wonder who, exactly, is thinking a little too much about race.

Hmm?

I have followed Obama for two years. I considered voting for McCain until he allowed someone to stick a hand up his butt and a tie a couple strings on his extremities.

It has nothing to do with gender or race, but rather quality of character, ideas, courage, and dignity. Toward the end, McCain proved to me he had nothing on Obama. Nothing.

Just for the record, I've had it with people saying they're scared of Obama. Should I reverse the race card and insist they're scared because he's black? Would that be fair? Absolutely not.

But I will suggest that perhaps some of it, if not all of it, has more to do with ignorance. As a busy people, we're prone to believe anything we hear and not do the research to back it up. We look at white men in suits and ties and assume they're conservative. We hear one, a former prisoner of war, say that his opponent is a closet socialist, and people agree because it sounds good, sounds right (damn liberals!), and it comes from...wait. A politician.

Since when did we trust what politicians say, again?

Look inside yourself and ask why you voted McCain if you did. Was it because he's Republican? White? A war hero? Old? Because your parents did, your church did?

For most of us, this isn't about race. I know for some it absolutely is, just like there were people who would've voted for Hilary just because she's a woman. People want history to happen in their lifetime. It's understandable, but hardly the best reason.

Just remember, there are people who voted for John McCain because he was the white guy. It's safe, it feels good, etc.

I just happen to believe there's more racism from those who cry "racist!" than people want to recognize. Just like sexism. How many of you are honestly scared a little of Muslims? Mexicans? Gay people?

This is a rhetorical question, but I think it's an important one. I think it's only human to have some kind of -ism within you. I do. The first thing to do is recognize it so you can fight it. Remember that God loves everyone, black and white, bond and free, male and female. Sometimes people decry ideas and people with zeal because they are trying to distract from their own prejudices.

If this hits home, and I imagine it should with most people, then we need to work on that.


http://www.barackobama.com/

To all the lovely sign snatchers

You're idiots.

You know, this is one thing I don't get. It's childish and lame. It only says that you've no other recourse, that you're so desperate, that you'll trespass and steal signs.

It also says, in the case of Proposition 8, you're just as prejudiced as you claim the "yes" crowd is. It says you're scared. It says you have the same lack of respect as you claim you or your friends are victim of.

Just like you have your right to freedom of speech, so do those who don't agree with you. It's one of the lovely things about living where we do.

I have every faith that what is supposed to happen, will happen. What you think should happen may not, but truth always prevails in the end. Sometimes it takes time, sometimes it doesn't, but truth always prevails.

Trust in that. Be the bigger person. Let's not resort to name calling, sign snatching, etc. It says more about us than it does about them.

As for the question as to how I think this will affect churches should Proposition 8 fail, I imagine graffiti and other hate crimes would be happening now. It's no secret that many Christian churches are very much against this proposition. What's stopping the backlash now?

It's just sign stealing, and I don't mean to say that as if to brush it aside. What I am saying is that the law is on the side of the anti-8 crowd, and if they wanted to do something worse they would now.

As far as I can tell, that hasn't happened yet. We're allowed to believe as we will. We're allowed to disagree. If someone feels the need to violently attack anyone who is against gay marriage, the law will undoubtedly be on the side of the attacked.

There will always be those who feel they have to resort to baser methods to prove a point.

On an ironic note, I just noticed two of our pumpkins were stolen overnight. Mmph.

Anyway, listen: the Church's stance on gay marriage is no secret. It's only expected that they would feel the need to take an official stance on this proposition. Everyone wants to think they'll be a victim of their beliefs. Let's not forget, though, that signs are stolen in every election.

Did anything happen after Proposition 22 passed back in 2000? For those unfamiliar with California politics, Proposition 22 called for the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional and overturned it this past May 15th. Proposition 8 calls for an amendment to make Proposition 22 constitutional.

Seriously though - did anything happen? I don't remember anything earth shattering happening. This kind of thing, the sign snatching, happens every election year.

I mean, somebody felt it necessary to remove half of our Obama '08 sticker on one of our cars in the last few months. Classy, right?

I actually laughed. We live in one of, if not the, most conservative county in the state. As far as I can tell, we're the only ones with an Obama anything.

It's no more personal than it has been in the past. I'd be rather surprised - and dismayed, don't get me wrong - if these kinds of actions continued and escalated after November 4th.

I really think we're all better than that.