The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints conducts humanitarian activities worldwide. From 1985 to 2007 Humanitarian Services provided more than $1.01 billion in total assistance to needy individuals in 165 countries.
In 1996 the Church organized Latter-day Saint Charities as a non-governmental organization to facilitate humanitarian activities in selected countries.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Sandy, UT Home for Sale
We own a house in Sandy, UT that we have decided to sell. The house is freshly remodeled. The house is located in the High Point subdivision at 1171 Lodgepole Dr. Sandy, UT. At only $319,000, it is the lowest priced home per square foot in the High Point subdivision.
The countertops, tile, dishwasher, and microwave are all new. The realtor is Jim Carlson. He can be reached at (801) 560-0147 or jcarlson@rexut.com
The house is a lovely 2 story split level home in the High Point Subdivision. Home sits at end of quiet side lane and is a very private location. There are three large bedrooms upstairs including a master bedroom with master bath. The main level is very open with a large kitchen, dining nook in a bay, and large front living room. The family room is very large and has a gas burning fireplace. Off the back of the home is a large custom deck that has been built around a large shade tree.
If you, or anyone you know, is looking for a immaculate 4 bedroom, 2.5 bath home on a private cul-de-sac should give Jim a call and set up a time to go look at the house.
Other particulars include:
Lot size: 10,454 sq ft. or a full quarter acre.
2,236 sq ft house
The neighborhood has a great central location just off of 1300 East in northern Sandy. There is easy access to the major freeways and loads of great stores near by. Four major ski resorts are a mere 30 minutes away, and Park City is only 40 minutes away. In and out access to the main 1-15 corridor is easy and near by.
Neighborhood: High Point
School District: Jordan School District
Elementary School: East Sandy
Middle School: Union
High School: Hillcrest
New kitchen countertops and dishwasher
Kitchen picture #2
Main Living Room w/fireplace
Fireplace and bookshelf
There is brand new tile in the hallway, kitchen and bathrooms.
Master Bathroom
Back Patio
Front Bedroom with bench seat windows
Front Room with bench window seats
Stairs leading up to Master Bedroom and two other bedrooms
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Good, Better, Best 3 Nephi 28: 1-7
1 AND it came to pass when Jesus had said these words, he spake unto his disciples, one by one, saying unto them: What is it that ye desire of me, after that I am gone to the Father?
2 And they all spake, save it were three, saying: We desire that after we have lived unto the age of man, that our ministry, wherein thou hast called us, may have an end, that we may speedily come unto thee in thy kingdom.
3 And he said unto them: Blessed are ye because ye desired this thing of me; therefore, after that ye are seventy and two years old ye shall come unto me in my kingdom; and with me ye shall find rest.
4 And when he had spoken unto them, he turned himself unto the three, and said unto them: What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father?
5 And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak unto him the thing which they desired.
6 And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.
7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.
(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 28:1 - 7)
I love these verses. Jesus asks his disciples what they would like out of life. Nine of them respond that when their lives are over, that they want to return to Him quickly. He is pleased to hear this and tells them that it will be as they requested. However, the other three want something else. They want to continue to work in the Lord’s vineyard here in mortality.
They wanted something better. What I really like about this is that Jesus did not try to persuade the first nine to do the same thing. He was pleased with their righteous desire to want to be with Him. He could’ve asked those three first what they wanted, and it might have persuaded the others to follow suit, but He didn’t. It comes down to good, better, best.
We’re all here in mortality, hopefully trying to do the best that we can. As long as I am striving to do the Lord’s will and to draw closer to Him I feel His love in my life. There are undoubtedly many people that are more spiritual and better at keeping the commandments than I am. However, the Lord is patient with me, and desires what is best for me. He will save me just as fast as I let Him. Would He like me to be as righteous as my Bishop or Stake President, (or insert some other righteous person you look up to here)? I’m sure that He would. Do I want to be as righteous as my Bishop and Stake President? Yes I do. The Lord will help me along the way without beating me over the head because I’m not quite Apostle material yet.
2 And they all spake, save it were three, saying: We desire that after we have lived unto the age of man, that our ministry, wherein thou hast called us, may have an end, that we may speedily come unto thee in thy kingdom.
3 And he said unto them: Blessed are ye because ye desired this thing of me; therefore, after that ye are seventy and two years old ye shall come unto me in my kingdom; and with me ye shall find rest.
4 And when he had spoken unto them, he turned himself unto the three, and said unto them: What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father?
5 And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak unto him the thing which they desired.
6 And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.
7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.
(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 28:1 - 7)
I love these verses. Jesus asks his disciples what they would like out of life. Nine of them respond that when their lives are over, that they want to return to Him quickly. He is pleased to hear this and tells them that it will be as they requested. However, the other three want something else. They want to continue to work in the Lord’s vineyard here in mortality.
They wanted something better. What I really like about this is that Jesus did not try to persuade the first nine to do the same thing. He was pleased with their righteous desire to want to be with Him. He could’ve asked those three first what they wanted, and it might have persuaded the others to follow suit, but He didn’t. It comes down to good, better, best.
We’re all here in mortality, hopefully trying to do the best that we can. As long as I am striving to do the Lord’s will and to draw closer to Him I feel His love in my life. There are undoubtedly many people that are more spiritual and better at keeping the commandments than I am. However, the Lord is patient with me, and desires what is best for me. He will save me just as fast as I let Him. Would He like me to be as righteous as my Bishop or Stake President, (or insert some other righteous person you look up to here)? I’m sure that He would. Do I want to be as righteous as my Bishop and Stake President? Yes I do. The Lord will help me along the way without beating me over the head because I’m not quite Apostle material yet.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
How the California Supreme Court got it wrong
On Thursday, May 15, 2008 That California Supreme Court overruled the state statute, voted on and approved by the citizens of California, that legally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. The recent history of this issue in California is as follows:
On March 7, 2000, the people of California passed an initiative stating that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
In February 2004, the mayor of San Francisco gained international attention and ignited controversy when he directed city officials to ignore the law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He justified his actions by claiming the California Constitution requires the government to allow same-sex couples to marry.
The California Supreme Court intervened and voided the illegal licenses on the ground that the mayor had no authority to disregard state law. However, the court did not decide whether the California Constitution requires the state to allow same-gender marriage. That issue became the subject of additional litigation.
In March 2005, a state trial court judge ruled that the state must allow same-gender marriage. That decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, which will make the final decision on the issue.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined with the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of American in filing a brief to the California Supreme Court defending the established definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The
Brief is available on Newsroom.
Some of the interesting points of the brief are as follows:
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF
AND AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS,
CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS, AND
UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Justice Stephen G. Breyer recently emphasized these themes: “[T]he Constitution [is] centrally focused upon active liberty, upon the right of individuals to participate in democratic self-government.” (Breyer, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution (2005), p. 21.) In his view, “courts should take greater account of the Constitution’s democratic nature when they interpret constitutional and statutory texts.” (Id. at 5.) Judicial restraint – i.e, “judicial modesty in constitutional decision-making” – is essential. (Id. at 37; see also id. at 17.)
Nowhere is judicial deference to democratic self-government more appropriate than in California. Here, the people have zealously retained their sovereign right to set public policy. The California Constitution places unique emphasis on democratic participation in policymaking. That emphasis represents a constitutional lens through which this Court should view its role in adjudicating these cases.
More specifically, on no subject is judicial restraint more warranted than in the present challenge to the time-honored definition of marriage. “[T]he structure of society itself largely depends upon the institution of marriage.” (Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 660, 684.) Like generations of Californians, when penning those words in 1976, this Court understood “marriage” to be the union of a man and a woman. It understood that marriage is a social “institution,” not merely a private arrangement between two people. And it understood that what is at stake in marriage is no less than the wellbeing “of society itself.” Page 28 of 73
A. The Judiciary Is Ill-Suited to Make Basic Public Policy
Decisions. The marriage debate turns on conflicting social and moral values and competing visions of how society should be ordered. Courts are not the right forum for this far-reaching discussion. As Professor Bickel explained, the judiciary is inherently ill-equipped to make such defining public policy choices:
The judicial process is too principle-prone and principlebound – it has to be, there is no other justification or explanation for the role it plays. It is also too remote from conditions, and deals, case by case, with too narrow a slice of reality. It is not accessible to all the varied interests that are in play in any decision of great consequence. It is, very properly, independent. It is passive. It has difficulty controlling the stages by which it approaches a problem. It rushes forward too fast…
For all these reasons, it is, in a vast, complex, changeable society, a most unsuitable instrument for the formation of policy. (Bickel, The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress (1978), p. 175.) B. California’s Constitution Places Heavy Reliance on the Active Involvement of the People in Fashioning Public
Policy. Deference to the democratic process in matters of bedrock public policy is particularly appropriate in California, where the Constitution places heavy emphasis on the reserved powers of the people and democratic decision-making.
1. The California Constitution reserves “all political power” to the people.
The California Constitution represents “the highest expression of the will of the people of the state” (Ex Parte Braun (1903) 141 Cal. 204, 211), and “the preeminent expression of California law enacted by the people.” (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lundgren (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 307, 314.) Article 2 § 1 of the Constitution declares, “All political power is inherent in the people.” (Cal. Const., Art. II, § 1 (emphasis added).) The three branches of California’s government have only as much power as the people have delegated to them under the Constitution.
Unlike the United States Constitution, which has “no mechanism for lawmaking directly by the people” (Mannheim & Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California (1998) 31 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1165, 1167), California’s Constitution reserves to the people powerful means of directly exercising their political power. Indeed, California is “at the radical end of the direct democracy spectrum.” (Id. at 1173.) The people have reserved to themselves the right to legislate directly through the initiative process by simple majority vote. (Cal. Const., Art. II, §§ 8 & 10.) They can “approve or reject” legislation, in whole or part, through the referendum process and recall their elected officials mid-term. (Id. §§ 9 & 13.) By these and other means, the people have constitutionally placed themselves at the center of policymaking.
This constitutional emphasis on the people’s right to directly decide policy issues is an interpretive lens through which this Court should view its role in the marriage debate. It is not the function of the judiciary to create new constitutional rights or to expand existing rights beyond what the people intended. Courts have no authority to create a new constitutional right and thereby limit an arena where the people have decided to govern themselves through the ordinary democratic process. All constitutional change, including the creation of new rights, must come from the people. The people and the legislature, to the extent the people have delegated power to it, are “the creative element in the government.”
(Nougues v. Gouglass (1857) 7 Cal. 65, 70.)
2. California courts and members of this Court have repeatedly emphasized the importance of deferring to democratic bodies in matters of public policy. California courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of allowing democratic bodies to create and implement public policy. “The determination of public policy of states resides, first, with the people as expressed in their Constitution and, second, with the representatives of the people − the state Legislature.” (Jensen v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1959) 52 Cal. 2d 786, 794.)
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs ask this Court to alter the basic definition of marriage and thereby change our shared understanding of this vital social institution. That would be a momentous change, one with serious consequences for married couples, children, and families. With deepest respect for this Court, when it comes to the definition of marriage the stakes are simply too high for the issue to be decided by a handful of judges, no matter how able or learned. As a matter of democratic legitimacy and judicial prudence, any such change should come from the people and their legislative representatives.
The people of California and their political institutions are fully engaged in a democratic conversation about the nature and meaning of marriage. In the best of the American democratic tradition, “we the people” are talking, deliberating, deciding. Whatever the outcome, the conversation about this basic social institution should be allowed to continue without a profoundly divisive, judicial short-circuiting of the democratic process.
Page 71 of 73
By overturning the will of the people this week, the State of California’s Supreme Court has started on a slippery slope that will lead to the break down of our moral compass, and as a consequence, the weakening of our very society.
Consider the following article that explains the benefits children receive that are raised in a home with a father and a mother that reads in part:
To be concerned with proper child development is to be concerned about making sure that children have daily access to the different and complementary ways mothers and fathers parent.
If Heather is being raised by two mommies and Brandon is being raised by Daddy and his new husband-roommate, Heather and Brandon might have two adults in their lives, but they are being deprived of the benefits found in the unique influences found in a mother and father’s differing parenting styles. Much of the value mothers and fathers bring to their children is due to the fact that mothers and fathers are different. And by cooperating together and complementing each other in their differences, they provide these good things that same-sex caregivers cannot. The important value of these gender-based differences in healthy child-development will be explored here.
The fathering difference is explained by fathering scholar Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads matter simply because “fathers do not mother.” Psychology Today explains, “Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.” A father, as a male parent, brings unique contributions to the job of parenting that a mother cannot.
Likewise, a mother, as a female parent, uniquely impacts the life and development of her child, as Dr. Brenda Hunter explains in her book The Power of Mother Love: Transforming Both Mother and Child. Erik Erikson explained that father love and mother love are qualitatively different kinds of love. Fathers “love more dangerously” because their love is more “expectant, more instrumental” than a mother’s love.
The following are some of the most compelling ways mother and father involvement make a positive difference in a child’s life. The first benefit is the difference itself.
“Children need mom's softness as well as dad’s roughhousing.”
Mothers and Fathers Parent Differently
This difference provides an important diversity of experiences for children. Dr. Pruett explains that fathers have a distinct style of communication and interaction with children. Infants, by 8 weeks, can tell the difference between a male or female interacting with them. Stanford psychologist Eleanor Maccoby, in her book The Two Sexes, explains mothers and fathers respond differently to infants. Mothers are more likely to provide warm, nurturing care for a crying infant. This diversity in itself provides children with a broader, richer experience of contrasting relational interactions —more so than for children who are raised by only one gender. Whether they realize it or not, children are learning at earliest age, by sheer experience, that men and women are different and have different ways of dealing with life, other adults and their children.
The above article also shows the importance of married couples striving to improve their marriages and to consider divorce as the last option as opposed to the all too frequent first option in dealing with challenges and struggles inherent in most marriages.
This post is not my intent to write an anti-gay rant. Homosexuality is not a sin that I have had to struggle with, but I’m pretty sure that I shouldn’t be casting stones at others until I am without sin. I’m not there yet, and I have this sneaking suspicion that if I do get there, I’m not going to want to cast stones anyway.
The LDS churches official position on the decision of the California Supreme Court is as follows:
“SALT LAKE CITY 16 May 2008 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes that same-sex marriage can be an emotional and divisive issue. However, the Church teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is the basic unit of society. Yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision is unfortunate.”
When I started researching for this post, I went to several religious websites that discussed homosexuality. Most of them said that gays will burn in hell. My thoughts were, “yeah ok maybe, but I will to if I don’t keep the commandments as well, and the last time I checked, that’s not the only commandment.” I was left wondering if the people that wrote these articles on their websites then went home kicked their dog and yelled at their wife and children. I could be wrong, but a lot of them seemed very angry. It’s always rubbed me the wrong way when people adopt an, “I’m going to heaven because I’m a (fill in your religious organization here – including Mormons, because I’ve definitely met some that feel this way), but you’re going to be miserable for eternity because you’re not like me.”
Point being, I wanted to quote more than just “LDS” thoughts on this subject. However, the best thoughts I could find were from the church’s own website. Feel free to comment and add your findings if they differ from mine.
I did find an interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks that I liked, it reads in part:
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At the outset, can you explain why this whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriage is important to the Church?
ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men — that he has no interest and never has had any interest in girls. He believes he’s probably gay. He says that he’s tried to suppress these feelings. He’s remained celibate, but he realizes that his feelings are going to be devastating to the family because we’ve always talked about his Church mission, about his temple marriage and all those kinds of things. He just feels he can’t live what he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?
ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.
The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.
The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.
Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church membership called into question.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If somebody has a very powerful heterosexual drive, there is the opportunity for marriage. If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction to women?
ELDER OAKS: That is exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not married.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?
ELDER OAKS: Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.
We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.
In another article President Gordon B. Hinckley said:
“Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married" (“Why We Do Some of the Things We Do,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 54).
After initially creating this post, I found this article that I also liked.
In conclusion, The State of California overstepped its bounds with its latest ruling. They should have abided by the will of the people. If the will of the people was in support of gay marriage, then that should’ve been respected as well, and my personal opinions on the subject should’ve been ignored. The vast majority of Californians justifiably could feel disenfranchised by this latest ruling, which will breed contempt for government as a whole, and the judiciary in particular.
Marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Any other definition cheapens the status that has been held by society going back to the beginning of time.
Children are best served by having a male father and a female mother. Their needs should not become subject to the whims of those that want to live in a gay lifestyle but feel that they should raise children as well. If nature doesn’t allow two men or two women to conceive between them, there’s probably a good reason for it.
On March 7, 2000, the people of California passed an initiative stating that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
In February 2004, the mayor of San Francisco gained international attention and ignited controversy when he directed city officials to ignore the law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He justified his actions by claiming the California Constitution requires the government to allow same-sex couples to marry.
The California Supreme Court intervened and voided the illegal licenses on the ground that the mayor had no authority to disregard state law. However, the court did not decide whether the California Constitution requires the state to allow same-gender marriage. That issue became the subject of additional litigation.
In March 2005, a state trial court judge ruled that the state must allow same-gender marriage. That decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, which will make the final decision on the issue.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined with the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of American in filing a brief to the California Supreme Court defending the established definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The
Brief is available on Newsroom.
Some of the interesting points of the brief are as follows:
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF
AND AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS,
CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS, AND
UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Justice Stephen G. Breyer recently emphasized these themes: “[T]he Constitution [is] centrally focused upon active liberty, upon the right of individuals to participate in democratic self-government.” (Breyer, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution (2005), p. 21.) In his view, “courts should take greater account of the Constitution’s democratic nature when they interpret constitutional and statutory texts.” (Id. at 5.) Judicial restraint – i.e, “judicial modesty in constitutional decision-making” – is essential. (Id. at 37; see also id. at 17.)
Nowhere is judicial deference to democratic self-government more appropriate than in California. Here, the people have zealously retained their sovereign right to set public policy. The California Constitution places unique emphasis on democratic participation in policymaking. That emphasis represents a constitutional lens through which this Court should view its role in adjudicating these cases.
More specifically, on no subject is judicial restraint more warranted than in the present challenge to the time-honored definition of marriage. “[T]he structure of society itself largely depends upon the institution of marriage.” (Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 660, 684.) Like generations of Californians, when penning those words in 1976, this Court understood “marriage” to be the union of a man and a woman. It understood that marriage is a social “institution,” not merely a private arrangement between two people. And it understood that what is at stake in marriage is no less than the wellbeing “of society itself.” Page 28 of 73
A. The Judiciary Is Ill-Suited to Make Basic Public Policy
Decisions. The marriage debate turns on conflicting social and moral values and competing visions of how society should be ordered. Courts are not the right forum for this far-reaching discussion. As Professor Bickel explained, the judiciary is inherently ill-equipped to make such defining public policy choices:
The judicial process is too principle-prone and principlebound – it has to be, there is no other justification or explanation for the role it plays. It is also too remote from conditions, and deals, case by case, with too narrow a slice of reality. It is not accessible to all the varied interests that are in play in any decision of great consequence. It is, very properly, independent. It is passive. It has difficulty controlling the stages by which it approaches a problem. It rushes forward too fast…
For all these reasons, it is, in a vast, complex, changeable society, a most unsuitable instrument for the formation of policy. (Bickel, The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress (1978), p. 175.) B. California’s Constitution Places Heavy Reliance on the Active Involvement of the People in Fashioning Public
Policy. Deference to the democratic process in matters of bedrock public policy is particularly appropriate in California, where the Constitution places heavy emphasis on the reserved powers of the people and democratic decision-making.
1. The California Constitution reserves “all political power” to the people.
The California Constitution represents “the highest expression of the will of the people of the state” (Ex Parte Braun (1903) 141 Cal. 204, 211), and “the preeminent expression of California law enacted by the people.” (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lundgren (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 307, 314.) Article 2 § 1 of the Constitution declares, “All political power is inherent in the people.” (Cal. Const., Art. II, § 1 (emphasis added).) The three branches of California’s government have only as much power as the people have delegated to them under the Constitution.
Unlike the United States Constitution, which has “no mechanism for lawmaking directly by the people” (Mannheim & Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California (1998) 31 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1165, 1167), California’s Constitution reserves to the people powerful means of directly exercising their political power. Indeed, California is “at the radical end of the direct democracy spectrum.” (Id. at 1173.) The people have reserved to themselves the right to legislate directly through the initiative process by simple majority vote. (Cal. Const., Art. II, §§ 8 & 10.) They can “approve or reject” legislation, in whole or part, through the referendum process and recall their elected officials mid-term. (Id. §§ 9 & 13.) By these and other means, the people have constitutionally placed themselves at the center of policymaking.
This constitutional emphasis on the people’s right to directly decide policy issues is an interpretive lens through which this Court should view its role in the marriage debate. It is not the function of the judiciary to create new constitutional rights or to expand existing rights beyond what the people intended. Courts have no authority to create a new constitutional right and thereby limit an arena where the people have decided to govern themselves through the ordinary democratic process. All constitutional change, including the creation of new rights, must come from the people. The people and the legislature, to the extent the people have delegated power to it, are “the creative element in the government.”
(Nougues v. Gouglass (1857) 7 Cal. 65, 70.)
2. California courts and members of this Court have repeatedly emphasized the importance of deferring to democratic bodies in matters of public policy. California courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of allowing democratic bodies to create and implement public policy. “The determination of public policy of states resides, first, with the people as expressed in their Constitution and, second, with the representatives of the people − the state Legislature.” (Jensen v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1959) 52 Cal. 2d 786, 794.)
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs ask this Court to alter the basic definition of marriage and thereby change our shared understanding of this vital social institution. That would be a momentous change, one with serious consequences for married couples, children, and families. With deepest respect for this Court, when it comes to the definition of marriage the stakes are simply too high for the issue to be decided by a handful of judges, no matter how able or learned. As a matter of democratic legitimacy and judicial prudence, any such change should come from the people and their legislative representatives.
The people of California and their political institutions are fully engaged in a democratic conversation about the nature and meaning of marriage. In the best of the American democratic tradition, “we the people” are talking, deliberating, deciding. Whatever the outcome, the conversation about this basic social institution should be allowed to continue without a profoundly divisive, judicial short-circuiting of the democratic process.
Page 71 of 73
By overturning the will of the people this week, the State of California’s Supreme Court has started on a slippery slope that will lead to the break down of our moral compass, and as a consequence, the weakening of our very society.
Consider the following article that explains the benefits children receive that are raised in a home with a father and a mother that reads in part:
To be concerned with proper child development is to be concerned about making sure that children have daily access to the different and complementary ways mothers and fathers parent.
If Heather is being raised by two mommies and Brandon is being raised by Daddy and his new husband-roommate, Heather and Brandon might have two adults in their lives, but they are being deprived of the benefits found in the unique influences found in a mother and father’s differing parenting styles. Much of the value mothers and fathers bring to their children is due to the fact that mothers and fathers are different. And by cooperating together and complementing each other in their differences, they provide these good things that same-sex caregivers cannot. The important value of these gender-based differences in healthy child-development will be explored here.
The fathering difference is explained by fathering scholar Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads matter simply because “fathers do not mother.” Psychology Today explains, “Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.” A father, as a male parent, brings unique contributions to the job of parenting that a mother cannot.
Likewise, a mother, as a female parent, uniquely impacts the life and development of her child, as Dr. Brenda Hunter explains in her book The Power of Mother Love: Transforming Both Mother and Child. Erik Erikson explained that father love and mother love are qualitatively different kinds of love. Fathers “love more dangerously” because their love is more “expectant, more instrumental” than a mother’s love.
The following are some of the most compelling ways mother and father involvement make a positive difference in a child’s life. The first benefit is the difference itself.
“Children need mom's softness as well as dad’s roughhousing.”
Mothers and Fathers Parent Differently
This difference provides an important diversity of experiences for children. Dr. Pruett explains that fathers have a distinct style of communication and interaction with children. Infants, by 8 weeks, can tell the difference between a male or female interacting with them. Stanford psychologist Eleanor Maccoby, in her book The Two Sexes, explains mothers and fathers respond differently to infants. Mothers are more likely to provide warm, nurturing care for a crying infant. This diversity in itself provides children with a broader, richer experience of contrasting relational interactions —more so than for children who are raised by only one gender. Whether they realize it or not, children are learning at earliest age, by sheer experience, that men and women are different and have different ways of dealing with life, other adults and their children.
The above article also shows the importance of married couples striving to improve their marriages and to consider divorce as the last option as opposed to the all too frequent first option in dealing with challenges and struggles inherent in most marriages.
This post is not my intent to write an anti-gay rant. Homosexuality is not a sin that I have had to struggle with, but I’m pretty sure that I shouldn’t be casting stones at others until I am without sin. I’m not there yet, and I have this sneaking suspicion that if I do get there, I’m not going to want to cast stones anyway.
The LDS churches official position on the decision of the California Supreme Court is as follows:
“SALT LAKE CITY 16 May 2008 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes that same-sex marriage can be an emotional and divisive issue. However, the Church teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is the basic unit of society. Yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision is unfortunate.”
When I started researching for this post, I went to several religious websites that discussed homosexuality. Most of them said that gays will burn in hell. My thoughts were, “yeah ok maybe, but I will to if I don’t keep the commandments as well, and the last time I checked, that’s not the only commandment.” I was left wondering if the people that wrote these articles on their websites then went home kicked their dog and yelled at their wife and children. I could be wrong, but a lot of them seemed very angry. It’s always rubbed me the wrong way when people adopt an, “I’m going to heaven because I’m a (fill in your religious organization here – including Mormons, because I’ve definitely met some that feel this way), but you’re going to be miserable for eternity because you’re not like me.”
Point being, I wanted to quote more than just “LDS” thoughts on this subject. However, the best thoughts I could find were from the church’s own website. Feel free to comment and add your findings if they differ from mine.
I did find an interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks that I liked, it reads in part:
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At the outset, can you explain why this whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriage is important to the Church?
ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men — that he has no interest and never has had any interest in girls. He believes he’s probably gay. He says that he’s tried to suppress these feelings. He’s remained celibate, but he realizes that his feelings are going to be devastating to the family because we’ve always talked about his Church mission, about his temple marriage and all those kinds of things. He just feels he can’t live what he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?
ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.
The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.
The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.
Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church membership called into question.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If somebody has a very powerful heterosexual drive, there is the opportunity for marriage. If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction to women?
ELDER OAKS: That is exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not married.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?
ELDER OAKS: Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.
We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.
In another article President Gordon B. Hinckley said:
“Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married" (“Why We Do Some of the Things We Do,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 54).
After initially creating this post, I found this article that I also liked.
In conclusion, The State of California overstepped its bounds with its latest ruling. They should have abided by the will of the people. If the will of the people was in support of gay marriage, then that should’ve been respected as well, and my personal opinions on the subject should’ve been ignored. The vast majority of Californians justifiably could feel disenfranchised by this latest ruling, which will breed contempt for government as a whole, and the judiciary in particular.
Marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Any other definition cheapens the status that has been held by society going back to the beginning of time.
Children are best served by having a male father and a female mother. Their needs should not become subject to the whims of those that want to live in a gay lifestyle but feel that they should raise children as well. If nature doesn’t allow two men or two women to conceive between them, there’s probably a good reason for it.
Friday, May 16, 2008
8 weeks post-op x-rays on left elbow
This is an x-ray taken earlier today on my left elbow. Doctor/Brother Matthew Hansen explained the important aspects, which I have noted on the image.
In short, the places where I broke my elbow, are still broken. However, to the left of my new radial head you can see a slight hazy cloud. That would be bone that is forming on my arm that wasn't there before. If that bone continues to form over the radial head and somehow connects to the upper arm, that would be bad. It would necessitate another surgery to get rid of it, as it would prevent my arm from bending. Dr. Hansen, if you're reading this, please feel free to click on the comment section at the bottom of this post and eloborate further, if you'd like.
I have complete confidence that I am in good hands. I have received blessings from worthy priesthood holders that my arm will heal, and if you haven't read the bio on my orthopedist, Matthew Hansen, click on his name above. Dude is seriously brilliant. He specializes in elbows and shoulders. He was mentored by the man that created Tommy John surgery.
If you have elbow or shoulder issues and are anywhere near Gilbert, AZ, i.e. the Western United States, he's the guy to go to.
This is the same x-ray, but I blacked out everything but the bone.
Missionary e-mail 5-16-08
It was great to be able to talk to you all this sunday! I loved it. I cant wait to be able to talk to you all again. This week was super busy, we had another baptism on saturday but water ran out in our part of the city. Somehow, one of the neighbors of the church had water in their house so we filled up buckets one by one and filled up the baptismal font. It took about an hour and half to do but finally we got enough water in there to baptize.
Things are getting quite a bit more busy now as we are getting closer to another transfer. Things will be changing around here though as the idea of a "Transfer" will be done away with. Starting in a few weeks, transfers will be on a weekly basis instead of every 6 weeks, encouraging the missionaries to work hard all the time and not just a few weeks out of the transfer. It should make things pretty interesting around here. Ill be around just long enough to start seeing the effects of the change.
The poor new guy at home had yet another shocking experience to add to his list of things that have happened just this transfer. Last night, he an his comp were affronted by a man who came up to them, demanded their cell phones, and proceeded to steal it out of their pocket, then took off. He has a tenth of the time I have on the mission and he has already seen so much cool stuff. Lucky...
I gotta go. Love you guys ton. Hope you all have a great week!
Tchau!
Elder Childs
Things are getting quite a bit more busy now as we are getting closer to another transfer. Things will be changing around here though as the idea of a "Transfer" will be done away with. Starting in a few weeks, transfers will be on a weekly basis instead of every 6 weeks, encouraging the missionaries to work hard all the time and not just a few weeks out of the transfer. It should make things pretty interesting around here. Ill be around just long enough to start seeing the effects of the change.
The poor new guy at home had yet another shocking experience to add to his list of things that have happened just this transfer. Last night, he an his comp were affronted by a man who came up to them, demanded their cell phones, and proceeded to steal it out of their pocket, then took off. He has a tenth of the time I have on the mission and he has already seen so much cool stuff. Lucky...
I gotta go. Love you guys ton. Hope you all have a great week!
Tchau!
Elder Childs
I'm ok, you're ok 3 Nephi 27: 9-15
9 Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name the Father will hear you;
10 And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it.
11 But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.
12 For their works do follow them, for it is because of their works that they are hewn down; therefore remember the things that I have told you.
13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.
(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 27:9 - 15)
The Lord’s church is built upon His gospel . As members of His church, we need to act in His name. That’s a great responsibility. Obviously, we are not the only church claiming divine guidance. How I act, what I say and do, should reflect my beliefs in my Savior.
Religion has a tendency to breed intolerance in many, i.e. you need to believe exactly as I do, or your going to burn in hell forever. Many churches seem to spend as much time spewing hatred against those that differ from them, as they do in building up their followers. One of my favorite phrases, which I think actually has Buddhist roots is, “A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.” I take that phrase to mean that I don’t need to make you look bad in order to make me look good. I’m not trying to say that I’m better than anyone, and I don’t need to have others praising me for what a good person I am. Trust me, I’m around myself all day. I know how far I need to progress to become the person I want to be.
If my actions/works are in line with Heavenly Father’s will, then I will find peace and joy in my life. Conversely, if they aren’t, I might think that I’ve found happiness for a short while, but ultimately, there is no happiness there.
10 And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it.
11 But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.
12 For their works do follow them, for it is because of their works that they are hewn down; therefore remember the things that I have told you.
13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.
(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 27:9 - 15)
The Lord’s church is built upon His gospel . As members of His church, we need to act in His name. That’s a great responsibility. Obviously, we are not the only church claiming divine guidance. How I act, what I say and do, should reflect my beliefs in my Savior.
Religion has a tendency to breed intolerance in many, i.e. you need to believe exactly as I do, or your going to burn in hell forever. Many churches seem to spend as much time spewing hatred against those that differ from them, as they do in building up their followers. One of my favorite phrases, which I think actually has Buddhist roots is, “A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.” I take that phrase to mean that I don’t need to make you look bad in order to make me look good. I’m not trying to say that I’m better than anyone, and I don’t need to have others praising me for what a good person I am. Trust me, I’m around myself all day. I know how far I need to progress to become the person I want to be.
If my actions/works are in line with Heavenly Father’s will, then I will find peace and joy in my life. Conversely, if they aren’t, I might think that I’ve found happiness for a short while, but ultimately, there is no happiness there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
