The Supreme Court Ruling on Proposition 8

This is a quick explanation of the actual Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8. Unfortunately it is not actually about Proposition 8, it is about the people's right to defend it.

Proposition 22

In California, voters passed a law (Proposition 22) in 2000 defining marriage. The Gay Marriage community threw money at it until they found a loophole they could invalidate it with. The decision by the California Supreme Court was that since the California constitution did not have any words about Gay Marriage in it, a law containing those words was unconstitutional. Proposition 22 was invalidated.

Proposition 8

Insensed at being disenfranchised by money and lawyers the people of California decided to change California's constitution to include the wording defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Gay Marriage supporters filed suit to prevent the initiative from being placed on the ballot. The California Supreme Court upheld the right of the initiative to be placed on the ballot. It again passed and the Gay Marriage supporters went to task throwing money at the problem trying to find a loophole.

Proposition 8 Upheld

The California Supreme Court upheld the Proposition 8 as voted. The case was then taken to Federal Court.

The People Fight Back

When suit was filed in Federal Court to get rid of the initiative that was passed by the people...again, the people who were supposed to uphold the law decided not to. It is the job of elected officials to defend the laws voted in by the people otherwise laws mean nothing. Governor Schwarzenegger decided to force his opinion on the people by not defending the case and allowing the plaintiffs to win by default. The people who passed the law asked to defend the law they passed and were allowed to be named as defendant in the trial.

The People go to Trial

The case was heard by the Federal Court and Proposition 8 was overturned because it was not in the state's interests to allow the banning of Gay Marriage. This judgement was from a self identified Gay Judge. It was in his own self interest to have Proposition 8 repealed and I'm surprised this was allowed. The people then appealed this judgement with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the Federal Appellate court for California. They ruled that the California Amendment to its Constitution was Unconstitutional according to the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

US Supreme Court Ruling

The appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judgement went to the US Supreme Court and they made an odd decision. But let's recap first:

1. Prop 22 passed.
2. Prop 22 repealed by CA Supreme Court.
3. Prop 8 proposed.
4. Prop 8 allowed on ballot by CA Supreme Court.
5. Prop 8 passed.
6. Prop 8 Upheld by CA Supreme Court.
7. Leaders won't defend law in Federal Court.
8. The people defend the law instead.
9. Gay Federal Judge repeals Proposition 8.
10. Ninth Court Of Appeals Upholds Gay Judge's decision.

So the US Supreme Court Ruling today was not to repeal Proposition 8. It was not to uphold the California Supreme Court Decision. It was not to uphold the Ninth Court's decision. What was it you ask?

The US Supreme Court ruled that the People are not allowed to defend a law.

What are we supposed to to when our leaders go against the public will? How are we supposed to defend ourselves? We cannot. Or at least that's what the US Supreme Court ruled today. If the Governor at the time, Schwarzenegger, had actually done his job Proposition 8 would have been upheld and would be in place.

Ramifications

The smart part of their ruling is that it has nothing to do with Gay Marriage. They completely skirted the issue. This will not affect states where the laws have already passed. Nor will it prevent future laws from being passed. This only affects laws challenged in Federal Court where the people with the standing to defend them refuse to do so. I can only hope that the case is refiled and the Governor steps up to do his job. For now:

Be legal.

How Men Are Percieved

I've been very happily married for nearly 14 years. I have four children ages 11, 10, 8 & 5. I've been very active in the lives of my wife and kids. I enjoy their company and I get the feeling they feel the same. Why am I telling you this? This is not how society sees me.

Probably dresses like a freak.

I heard that. No, this is not going to be a post about how society needs to stop judging people by how they look. We've been beaten over the head with that enough.

My head's still sore.

I'm probably going to make it hurt in a different way. Years ago I was out with my oldest two kids at the park, they were probably 5 and 4 and I was out giving their mom a break so she could nap with the third (she cleaned the house instead). My kids are really friendly and when they saw other kids at the park they instantly ran off to play leaving me to watch them in amusement on a bench a little ways off.

Sounds nice.

It was. They were happy, I loved watching them and it was a nice day out. As time went on though I became increasingly aware of moms at the park watching me. A couple of them were whispering to each other looking in my direction. I looked around so see what was going on.

It's the clothes right?

Stop that. I was dressed normally. I didn't think much of it and went back to watching the kids. A homeless man wandered through the park looking through trash cans. One of the moms took this opportunity to leave. That's when it hit me: I was the only other man at the park, sitting alone, watching children with a smile on his face.

Man you're creepy.

That's what they must've thought. I decided to call each child over to inquire on their status. You know: "Are you having fun? Are you thirsty? Do you need to use the potty? Stay away from the mud." The usual questions. After that the moms seemed less disturbed with my presence.

Until that point I was a pedophile. When did the default position on a single man become a pedophile? Now when I go to a park I have a mental timer counting down the time between child check-ins. If it goes too long I can feel my status change to pedophile.

From what?

Good question. Years more of watching my own children with and without my wife has taught me that without my wife I become a "deadbeat dad." That's the next step up. The only reason a solitary man would be at the park with his children is because he must be divorced and cannot entertain the children at his apartment. This is usually aggravated by the fact that I worked during the week and would be out with my kids on a Saturday.

And thus have custody.

Yep, that's my assigned time. While I won't say that Pedophiles and Deadbeat Dads don't exist, I do take exeption to those being my default assignments. I've compiled a list of defaults for men:

• Man: Pedophile
• Man & Kids: Deadbeat Dad
• Man & Wife: Boyfriend
• Man, Wife & Kids: Cheating Husband
• Man, Kids & other women have talked to wife: Good Husband

Most single men do not hang out at parks and so they probably are not aware of this social dynamic. Once you have kids, you become painfully aware of how much the world hates you. Try taking your kids for an ice cream at McDonald's. If your wife isn't there: Deadbeat Dad trying to buy your kids affection.

It only costs $1.50/child.

Has the news really jaded us so much that we expect that anyone we do not know is, by default, bad? I grew up an only child and so I didn't have a lot of empathy for other people not like me (though I thought I did). Having children has opened me up to a new set of social graces. They have taught me how to percieve the people around me and I like what they see. Older folks are nice people who know a lot and are trying to help, people your age are potential playmates and younger kids are people who might need help.

Children are so naive.

To a point yes. We can't leave ourselves completely open to harm by others. We can find ways to see the best in others and maybe, just maybe, I'm not actually a pedophile.

Be charitable.

LDS Infographics Again

The LDS church has added a few more infographics to add to my first and second list. Here's three more to add to it:

Africa Clean Water Project

The Mormon Church is involved in many humanitarian aid projects. One of them is bringing clean water to African communities. The best part of LDS Charities is that the Mormon Church pays for all the overhead so 100% of donations go to the cause.

< LDS Timeline of Christianity

The Mormon view is not always a unique one, but in the case of Christ's church it tends to differ from other religions. Especially in the case of how history has played out. This is not to say events did or did not happen, but more of how those events are interpreted. This infographic sums it up nicely.

A Global Christ Centered Faith >

Where are the LDS people? All over the world. This infographic covers how the Mormons are worldwide, where those people live, what languages they speak and other tidbits about how members are aware of the world around them. A very useful trait in the Global Information Age.

More Mormon Infographics

Wouldn't you know it, they released another interesting infographic.

General Conference

The LDS church has a conference for all 14 million of it's members plus anyone else that wants to tune in. This infographic shows some interesting statistics about General Conference. You can watch conference this Saturday and Sunday. Check on the General Conference website for more info.

Update 04/22/2012 - Man, them LDS folks are busy. They've made yet another infographic.

Mormon Lay Leadership

One of the things that sets Mormons apart from other religions is they have no paid clergy. In face, no leadership in the church is paid just for being a leader. This info graphic only covers two tiers of church leadership: The Congregation called a Ward and the Stake which is made up of several (approximately 7-15) Wards.

Be graphical.

Mormon Infographics

In recent years you have been seeing Mormons more and more in the media. The reports range from praise and honesty to rage and lies. To help clear things up some media outlets have gone to the trouble of putting facts into attractive and useful infographics to help us better understand them Mormon folk. I decided to compile some of them here:

Mormons In America

The Pew Forum put together a list of statistics showing how America views Mormons and how Mormons view america. There is no accompanying article for the infographic, but there is a considerable amount of text. Highlights include LDS opinions about the election.

Mormon Volunteerism

University of Pennsylvania professor Ram Cnaan and fellow researchers Van Evans and Daniel W. Curtis jointly published a study which producted this infographic. It talks about hours and dollars spent in and out of the LDS church. Highlights inlclude how prosocial Mormons are.

Mormonism 101: FAQ

The Mormon News Room put together an article answering common questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This is a sizeable article containing a lot of useful information about the church. It finishes with a handy infographic summing up some statistics about the church and its members. Highlights inlclude their christianity and attendance.

These handy, more palatable bits of data should help you and your friends know more about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). My hope is that through good information we might dispel the misconceptions about the church. So if you found these useful, please share them with a friend. You can even use the social media buttons below.

The Definition of Marriage

I decided to look up the definition of marriage the other day. I was curious as to the exact wording that would be used. I was surprised to see what they had done.

All sources clearly state that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. No surprise there, this definition has been clearly defined in nearly all societies in history. Though they might recognize other unions, genders or relationships, the clearly defined rules of marriage has always been assigned to a man and a woman.

The entymology of the word relates it both to a man and a woman. The latin matrem (meaning mother) and monium (meaning action, state, condition), together meaning a relationship where the female becomes a mother. This can only happen in a male-female relationship.

Imagine my surprise when some of the dictionaries included a secondary definition including same-sex marriages. The defining of words is a unpassionate discipline that does not bend to the whims of society. If a word falls into general use in society, it's definition needs to be established and subsequently published. If a word is used as slang by a small group and fails to gain such widespread usage or understanding it is not to be entered and called slang. But there it sits, begging the question why?

How about widespread usage? How many people in society use the word "ideal" to mean "idea" (ie. I have a good ideal)? Or how many say "I have more then you" when they mean than? Do you find those definitions in the dictionary? No. Well, what does society think?

Didn't same-sex marriage just become legal in several states? Not by the will of the peoople. In fact, not a single US state has voted in same sex marriage. Whenever the people have been asked to define marriage they have said again and again that it means a union between a man and a woman. Those states that currently allow same sex marriage only do so because millions of dollars were paid to lawyers to make it so. And serving a small group's interests does not a definition change.

Common use is where we derive definitions from and the common use for these alternatives to marriage requires modifiers to avoid confusion. When someone in the media or just a person on the street wants to tell you about the civil union of a homosexual couple they say phrases like "same-sex marriage," "gay marriage" and "homosexual marriage." There is a reason for this, when the general public hears the phrase "married couple" they know that means a man and a woman. Without the modifiers the word's meaning is clear and understood.

If I were to mention dry water an idea pops into your mind contrary to the word water. There are scientific publications that refer to a silica coated substance that is 95% water. It is dry to the touch and could be very useful in chemical applications. If that term were to gain widespread usage would dictionaries then add the "dry" definition to the word water? No, of course not.

By adding the same-sex entries definition of marriage, dictionaries have taken a political stance on the issue. As a percieved neutral source, this is a violation of the public trust in such institutions as dictionaries. I find this unconsionable, irresponsible and damaging. What other definitions can they be persuaded to change?

Be defined.

It's the end...again!

Here we go again. Another person has figured out when the end of the world is. I don't believe him, nor have I believed any of these other folks that sell destruction. Let us take a moment to ponder the reasons they say the world will end on x:

• The bible tells me so - There have been many to predict the end of the world. For example:
  • Charles Taze Russel predicted it would be in 1874 then successively in 1878, 1914, 1915, 1918 & 1925. In the end he said 1874 did happen, but it was symbolic.
  • Jim Jones predicted November 18, 1978. Unfortunately he committed suicide with 900 of his followers so he never found out he was wrong.
  • Michael Drosnin predicted December 2, 2006 using computers to read the "Bible Code."
  The funny thing about searching the Bible to prove when the world will end or the Second Coming of Christ is it says you can't: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." MAT 24:36 So the book they are looking to as an authority explicitly says that it can't help them.
• The [insert ancient culture] Knew - The most popular prediction these days is from the Mayan Calendar. People say the Calendar ends in 2012. They are correct: the Mayans made a Calendar and in the interest of planning ahead made future calendar dates extending to 2012. This wasn't because they said the world would end, they just didn't make more Calendar. Most Calendar companies have not printed 2013 yet, does that mean the world will end? No, someone will print them when we get sufficiently close just like the Mayans would have if their civilization continued long enough.
• Some Wise Man Said So - See the first entry. These are the same type of crazy folk, they just used other sources to come up with their faulty data:
  • Rabbi Sabbati Zevi predicted 1648AD & 1666AD. He later went crazy and joined Islam.
  • Nostradamus predicted July 1999 stating "The year 1999, seven months, From the sky will come a great King of Terror: To bring back to life the great King of the Mongols, Before and after Mars to reign by good luck."
  • Johannes Stöffler predicted February 1, 1524. He noticed that all the planets were going to line up and thought this would cause mass flooding.

So, we're still here and Harold Camping says that May 21^st, 2011 the rapture will happen. My first question is: What is the Rapture? I know what people say it is. It's been explained to me over and over. The reason I ask is that no one can tell me where they get this little doctrine from. Not ministers, not the internet, not even crazy fundies can tell me. They often refer to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, but this doesn't give any clear information about a doctrine and requires a lot of wild interpretation to generate the entire doctrine of the rapture.

The Rapture, as I have heard, is when all the believers are taken to heaven right before God/Christ comes to destroy the surface of the Earth. You would think that something this important would have more than a few vague verses. Nope. They're nowhere to be found. According to the Bible there is nothing even resembling a rapture. So not only is Mr. Camping predicting something his source says he cant, he's predicting an event his source doesn't say will happen.

Be thorough.