Article VI Blog

First Fact: Jason Collins “came out” as gay in Sports Illustrated yesterday.

Fact Two: SCOTUS is currently trying to decide two cases related to same-sex marriage, one on DOMA and one on California’s Prop 8.

These are essentially discrimination cases.  The claims center on the fact that it is discriminatory to forbid same-sex marriage.  But if you think about it, we discriminate everyday; otherwise, there could be no criminal or non-criminal, no good or bad.  Discrimination is not, of itself, wrong.  It is only wrong to discriminate in certain situations.  Legally, these “certain situations” are defined as a “protected class.”

Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law.^[1] The term describes characteristics or factors which cannot be targeted for discrimination and harassment.

So, what are the protected classes in the United States?  Wikipedia (linked above) provides a list.

• Race – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Color – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Religion – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National origin – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Age (40 and over) – Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• Sex – Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Familial status – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
• Disability status – Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Veteran status – Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
• Genetic information – Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Now, examine that list of characteristics carefully.  It can be divided into two categories.  Let’s call one “Attributes” and the other “Choices.”  Attributes are those characteristics that we have no control over – they are essentially accidents of birth.  So, the protected classes in the category of Attributes would be, race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability and genetic information.

Choices as a category is a different matter.  These are characteristics over which we as individuals do have control. The characteristics on that list that fall into this category are religion, familial status, and veteran.

Now the first thing we have to ask ourselves is if they we are to judge same sex marriage as discriminatory, into which category would we fit homosexuality?  This is where Jason Collins comes in.  Jason Collins is an identical twin:

Something in the media guides did not compute.

Jason Collins is listed at 7-0 and 260 pounds in the New Jersey Nets media guide, while the Utah Jazz media guide lists twin brother Jarron at 6-11 and 255. Aren’t they identical twins?

Yes, responds Portia Collins, the mother of the first set of identical twins to play in the NBA since Harvey and Horace Grant.

So, is Jason taller than Jarron?

After a bemused pause, the answer we knew was coming finally arrived: “Noooo.”

“They filled out questionnaires and have a media archive at their respective schools [high school and Stanford University]. Jarron and Jason let it continue. I don’t think they let it bother them.”

His brother Jarron is married, with kids; by all appearances quite heterosexual:

Late last summer Jason called and said that he was coming over because he had something to tell me. This was nothing new. We speak multiple times a day, always have. He’s Tio Jason to my three kids. He’s like a brother to my wife. He’s my twin, eight minutes older. We live only a few miles apart on the west side of L.A. But while most of our conversations are quick and light, this one was different.

So, here we have two men, genetically identical, that grew up together, were afforded all the same opportunities, went to high school and college together.  They seem as close as brothers can be.  Yet one is homosexual and one is heterosexual.  Clearly then, Jason’s homosexuality is a choice, or perhaps a series of small choices over the course of many years, but it is certainly not an Attribute, as we defined it above.

Many are the claims that homosexuals are “just born that way.”  How many times have I heard, “That’s just the way I am.”  Well, clearly it is not, as so well illustrated by the Collins twins.  Physically identical and walking nearly identical paths until well into adulthood,  one made choices that lead to a traditional lifestyle and the other made choices that lead down the path that was exposed yesterday.

Jason Collins “coming out” should make it crystal clear to SCOTUS that if they are to award “protected class” to homosexuals it will be in the Choices category, not the Attributes one.  But examine carefully that short list in the Choices category.  Religion is set aside as a protected class within the body of the constitution proper, and it is plain letter in the Bill of Rights.  Veteran only makes sense – this is another means of honoring those that have served the nation at the highest risk.  It seems commonsense enough.

Familial status is where the rub lies.  But note, this is not an absolute when it comes to the protections.  The protections are limited purely to housing matters and furthermore, there are notable exceptions.  While it could be argued that same-sex marriage is, in some sense, a “familial status,” it falls so far outside the existing protection limits as to make it plain to the court that they will be creating a whole new protected class should they go that direction with these cases.

Does the court have the power to create a protected class?  Note that each of the classes on the list above were created by legislative action, as cited.  When it comes to Attributes, it could be argued that the court might create, and/or expand a category based on “…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…,” in the Declaration of Independence.  But as the case of the Collins twins makes so transparent – this is no Attributes situation.

The Court has little choice but to leave existing law in place.  These are choices by the individuals involved and how to deal with such people is a choice for the people generally.  That is why there are elections and legislatures.  If the Court decides otherwise, it will be a clear and undeniable usurpation of power.  It would be a tyrannical act.

Posted in Culture Wars, Prejudice, Same-sex marriage, Social/Religious Trends | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I spent a good bit of yesterday getting people that owe me money, some of them for quite a long time, to pay me the money they owe me.  In business we call this “collections.” Most business like mine is conducted on some sort of limited credit.  When the economy is pumping along, it is usually not an issue.  But when things are down, it can be a huge issue.  People hoard money, they stretch their credit to the limit and if they owe you money, you have to ask to get paid.

Usually collections are a matter of course, you ask for the money, you get paid.  Lately though it seems like it takes more than just asking.  Threats of, and actually withholding, delivery is becoming something I have to do more and more of to get paid.  Money up-front, C.O.D. terms and other more forceful methods are necessary to keep the receivables in line.

I find myself wondering why, if the economic signs seem hopeful – as the news proclaims and the market seems to think, am I having such a hard time collecting money?  Is money tighter than we are being lead to believe?  I think that is true in some markets and maybe I am stuck in those markets at the moment.  But I think there is more at play.  If the government is borrowing money at a break-neck pace, with no real plan or seeming intention to pay it back, why shouldn’t my customers?

The timely payment of debt is a matter of simple civility.  By incurring debt I have pledged to meet that obligation.  I consider myself an honorable man, a man of my word, so such an obligation is not to be taken lightly.  And yet, if my situation is any measure, people are taking that obligation pretty lightly indeed.  This is not a good thing.

When things are down in this fashion, a society/nation has two ways to turn – on itself or towards something bigger.  America has always been about something bigger.  Our word has always been our bond – we have always worked to improve for all so that things improved for the self.  But one is forced to wonder if the nation is responding that way in the current times.

James Lileks:

Empathy is always held up as a great virtue, but it’s remarkable how so few people have empathy with the total sum of the American experience beyond their own self-definition.

Daniel Greenfield:

There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.

The left hasn’t gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.

You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.

Doug Wilson:

Anyone who has not noticed that “demands for apologies” have become one of the central political tactics of our day has simply not been paying attention. Like many effective tactics, it depends on an impulse that was originally good and right. It is the old Pottery Barn rule — you break it, it’s yours. Everybody knows that. But in our hyper age, we have gotten to the point where old high school pranks can be hauled out in presidential campaigns. This is simply pathological.

There is no civility here, there is only the desire to destroy what you have for the sake of what I want – whether it is destroying marriage of failing to pay debts, or forcing apology as a means of avoiding responsibility.  Why, after 200 years of pitching in and working together towards a compromise solution to any dilemma are we turning on ourselves and devouring one another?

Like the unleavened bread of this Passover season, we are missing an ingredient.  God, something bigger than all of us, is no longer a normal part of our thinking and discussion.

It’s Good Friday, the world is a dark, dark place.  At church, Easter is coming, the light will return.  But will it return to the nation?  Only a future more distant than Sunday will say for sure.  However, this I know – if we accept things as they are, if we keep our Passover and Easter celebrations within the confines of our Synagogues and Churches it will not.

I hate doing collections.  I hate having to point out to people that they are being dishonorable and uncivil.  I hate having to find a way to be nice to them when they are being so hard on me.  But I have found through long years of experience that such is just what I have to do.  Withdrawing means I never get paid.  Becoming completely adversarial just costs me more money.

So it is with putting our faith back in its place as the leaven of our society.  We have to undertake the unpleasant task of pointing out, and enduring, incivility while remaining civil.  We have got to step out of our ghettos.

Posted in Religious Bigotry, Same-sex marriage, Social/Religious Trends, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Chris Cillizza took Ann Romney “to task” yesterday:

While the media is a convenient (and common) scapegoat, Ann Romney is simply wrong when she says: “I believe it was the media’s fault as well, is that he was not giv[en] — being given a fair shake, that people weren’t allowed to see him for who he was.”

Here’s why. (Make sure to read WaPo’s Erik Wemple’s piece on Ann Romney too. It’s here.)

Mitt Romney had two great positive selling points when it came to introducing himself to the American public: his business record and his faith. He talked about neither at any great length — or on the sort of terms that might have helped his chances.

Let’s start with Romney’s Mormon faith. It was no secret that many within Romneyworld viewed the fact that he was a Mormon as a major reason for why his campaign never caught on among social conservatives in places like Iowa and South Carolina in 2008.

And so, coming into the 2012 race,  it was clear from very early on that Romney would not speak extensively (or really at all) about his Mormonism. Romney avoided talking about his faith even in openly religious settings; in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Romney gave his faith only a passing mention.

We understand why Romney was worried about putting his faith at the center (or somewhere close to it) of his campaign. Mormonism is still a religion with single digit percentages of adherents in the United States and its newness — within the broader scale of spiritual movements — has led to widespread skepticism.

Still, what Romney never could prove to people during the campaign was that he had a core set of beliefs — that he was something more than just a politician’s politician, willing to bend whichever way the prevailing wind was blowing. And, what’s evident from the stories that were written about Romney’s work with the Mormon church is a) it was and is a huge part of his life and b) his actions were, by and large, quite admirable, and would have endeared him to the general public.

I am not sure Cillizza’s political math adds up here.  He acknowledges, even if he does not admit, that Romney’s Mormon faith would have been a huge issue, had Romney brought it to the fore in the primary.  And there is evidence that it hurt him significantly in the general.  (Regular readers will recall that in the month or so after the election we looked at numbers indicating that the Evangelical vote did a lot of staying home last November.)  Cillizza seems to think that Romney’s unwillingness to tie this stone around his neck and jump in the water indicated a lack of a core, but what would happened if he had?  Would he have appealed to those that Cillizza seems to think he would have?

I doubt it seriously.  For Evangelicals, the lack of conviction charge was rooted in and code for Romney’s faith, not a result of his failure to discuss it.  Cillizza clearly does not understand the Evangelical mind, such as it is.  To the average Evangelical, Mormonism is precisely a lack of a core – in the hardcore Evangelical world, if Romney had a core he would be an Evangelical.  So with the base, the move Cillizza proposes would have served only in more stay-at-homes on election day.

Given the massive burst on same-sex marriage we have seen post election I think it is safe to say that during the general campaign a move to more strongly embrace his faith would have resulted,  as it seems Mormons are enemy #1 for the LGBT crowd, in such vitriolic and spiteful attacks from the left that he would have been forced off message.  The undercurrent from that community was immense as it was.

I truly believe we have reached a point where overt religious messaging will simply not play in the political space.

So, what is our message?  Well, let me pull together a few thing and suggest something.

Conor Friedersdorf has been hosting a bit of a discussion over at The Atlantic on religion and same sex marriage.  The latest entry in the discussion contains this:

In the ’60s and ’70s I was told and believed I was a deviant. In the ’80s I was told the AIDS epidemic was God’s judgment upon people like me. In the ’90s, DOMA and DADT became law to keep me in “my place.” Today my place is in Congress, on the school board, in the military and yes, at City Hall, applying for a marriage license. My personal struggle for equal treatment has done more than defined my life, it has made me whole.

“I…me…my…,” is what justifies this person’s political action.  Not “we,” not “us,” not “society or culture.”

I also ran across this at First Things:

In Habits of the Heart, written almost thirty years ago, sociologist Robert Bellah and his co-authors came up with a term to describe a new American religion: “Sheilaism.” The phrase comes from an interview Bellah conducted with a woman called Sheila, who described her religion as follows:

I believe in God. I am not a fanatic. I can’t remember the last time I went to church. My faith has carried me a long way. It’s Sheilaism. Just my own little voice. . . . My own Sheilaism . . . is just to try to love yourself and be gentle with yourself. You know, I guess, take care of each other.

You don’t have to be a sociologist to appreciate how well Sheila’s comments reflect the mindset of millions of Americans. You can dismiss that mindset as empty and self-indulgent, but in the land of postmodern individualism, Sheilaism has powerful rhetorical appeal.

Now, if you put those things together, there is no core to appeal to.  Ask yourself this, “What’s Obama’s core?”  From a campaign rhetoric standpoint (his philosophical/ideological core described n his writings aside) it is simple “feed your need” and “”protect you from the boogie man.”  That’s not a core, that’s pandering, but it appeals precisely to the “I…me…my…” crowd.

Do you remember a couple of weeks ago when we mentioned a Dennis Prager interview with an author?:

Here is a link to John J Miller’s NRO Interview with Jonathon Last on his new book, “What To Expect When No One’s Expecting.”  I have not had time to watch the Miller interview, but I did hear Last interviewed by Dennis Prager and Last has a startling conclusion.  Of course, the book is about declining birth rates.  Last found that the highest birth rates were amongst the religious.  He pointed to statistics that having a child makes couples demonstrably unhappier and more financially burdened and concluded that only a frame of reference that included something larger than self, which is something only religion can provide, is the only thing that can motivate reproduction.  He went out of his way to say it was not a matter of theological formulation, but simply the understanding that there is more than our individual wants and desires.

I think it is this “larger than self” message that is the only one that can propel us forward.  That can be religious, it can be civic duty, it can be a simple appeal to the common good is good for the individual, but it is the essential point.

Romney lives that idea and then some.  The press did not talk about it and Romney did not sell it.  And perhaps that’s the real issue here.  In the end, Cillizza seems to be saying it is not up to the press to investigate and report, but it is up to the candidate to message.  Someone who really understands the idea of “larger than self” takes from it a humility that should prevent “messaging” about it – for to do so would make it appear that even that charity was self-serving.

So, I think Ann Romney was right after all – and the press is self-serving.

Posted in Religious Freedom, Same-sex marriage, Social/Religious Trends, The Way Forward, Understanding Religion | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

When enough people tell you you are wrong, or you are told often enough by a few people, or you are told at extreme volume, it is a natural response to begin to wonder if you are, in fact, wrong.  The malaise the surrounds religiously motivated politically active sorts reflects in part this natural response – particularly in light of the propositions that passed on same -sex marriage.  In true Alinskite fashion, the pro same–sex marriage forces are taking advantage of these victories to press their message, at louder volumes, with greater frequency, and with considerably more force.

The onslaught for those of us that disagree is burdensome to say the least.  We’re right, we have thousands of years of history  and hundreds of moral authorities to prove our point and yet we find ourselves being attacked for our very correctness.  Have we sinned in defense of our correctness, oh yes.  We have demonized and ostracized the weak and hurting which are decidedly unchristian responses.  (Think about that Alinskites.)  But the penance for those sins is NOT to fundamentally alter the organization of society.  Nor is it appropriate to deny the truth of the sinful nature of homosexual practice to purge ourselves of our own sinful tendencies.

And yet that seems to be happening:

A November 2012 survey of adults in the United States found 37 percent affirm a belief that homosexual behavior is a sin – a statistically significant change from a September 2011 LifeWay Research survey asking the same question. At that time, 44 percent answered, “Yes.”

The article blames this shift on Obama’s “evolution” on the matter.  Leadership matters.

However, for Obama’s leadership to matter this much on this issue is a very damning conclusion on the leadership of religion on matters moral.  Which is why I found this bit of advice troubling:

…John S. Dickerson. Dickerson’s new book The Great Evangelical Recession identifies six factors of decline in the American Church and offers six solutions for leaders.

[...]

1. Take God’s good deeds directly to the homosexual tribe in your life and community. Don’t wait for them to come to you.

2. Refuse to classify the homosexual tribe as some worse class of people. This is unbiblical and showcases poor theology.

3. As with any tribe, don’t focus on changing behavior. Focus on changing relationship to God through Christ.

4. Don’t be surprised when you are hated and misunderstood about this issue. You will be.

5. When you are hated or misunderstood, don’t defend yourself or other evangelicals with words. Instead, let your quiet good actions eclipse any accusations (1 Peter 2:12).

6. Keep on demonstrating God’s good-ness and unconditional love—to the homosexuals closest to you.

Most of that is pretty good advice, but that number 5 is a sure loser.  In the modern media era, not to defend yourself “with words” is to admit defeat.

Now, it is most true that it is deeds that lend the ring of truth to the words.  If love of the sinner is not evident in life of those that declare a sin, then the declaration has no authority.  But it must also be remembered that love is not permissive and it is not demonstrated by granting its object that object’s “deepest desire.”  A loving parent does not allow a child to stick their hand in a fire, no matter how much the child wants to.  When the child becomes an adult, the parent may no longer be able to stop the child from doing so, but if they stop reminding that adult child that such action will have disastrous consequences then they prove that they need the child’s love more than they love the child.

I think that is where we are in our public discourse.  The world is beating on us – hard.  We just want peace, and we do not want to be the bad guys.  Well, we are not the bad guys.   But peace we cannot have because those that disagree with us have chosen rhetorical war – it cannot be avoided.   Let’s face it, in war the enemy is always the bad guy – we may not be the bad guy but we cannot escape the label in the heat of battle.  If we remain quiet we lose.

Religious folk of all stripes need to reassert their leadership position on matters moral, and we must do so now before an offensive is no longer possible and any effort would be an invasion.  We are not yet strangers in our own land, but it is close, and those that disagree with us wish to make us think we are.  Do not let the attacks force you into cover.

Posted in Analyzing 2012, Proposition 8, Same-sex marriage | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Well, the postmortem analysis has begun in earnest.  A lot of it focuses on demographics.  We can study the Evangelical vote by state.  We can break down the exit polls.  We can talk to the insiders.  Some are choosing to beat up n the Religious Right.  Some say religion did not matter.  Some are just blaming.  Some say it was the Mormon Issue, though not the way we think.  And some think the election was an overall positive for Mormons.

I think analysis this early in an election this dramatic is barely worth the electrons used to distribute it.  Too much data, way too many emotions running rampant, and amazing shifts in voter behavior require thought and deep reflection, which take time.  But like everyone else, I have some initial thoughts and they centered on an amazing thing – Same-sex marriage prevailed as a ballot measure in four states, all the places it was being considered.  That is an incredibly dramatic shift in public opinion on something very deeply fundamental in a very short time.  It was just 4-6 years ago that it had NEVER prevailed when put to the electorate.  So, what are we make of that?

One – sociologists, political scientists and others need to get busy studying this one.

Two – clearly this is not considered “deep” by most people – it is just another issue.  That represents something very scary.  It would seem to indicate that everything is a matter of taste and fashion.  A frightening and probably premature conclusion, but it is evidence.

Three – it’s generational.  Tuesday night both I in my post, and Gov. Romney in his concession speech touched on the need f or teachers and parents and others that form young people to inculcate those young people with our values.  It seems clear that most young people have been inculcated with very different values.  As they then come of age  to vote, we see those different values spring from their generation.  We have GOT to get busy.

Which brings me to the Mormon issue and the presidential election.  Clearly for the electorate to change this dramatically, this rapidly, on an issue like same sex marriage, there is enormous energy behind it – ENORMOUS.  We spent a lot of time during the campaign looking at how 1) The same sex marriage movement reviles Mormons because of Prop 8 and 2) that the Mormon issue was alive and well and discussed ad infinitum in the hard left places like Kos and Democratic Underground.  We assumed these were isolated corners of the far left universe and therefore not very significant.  However, given that to almost everyone’s amazement the high D turnout models proved to be correct, one must wonder if the energy radiated out from these far left corners more than we thought.  While Mormonism was not a campaign issue, was it an energizer for the left/Democrat constituency?

Of course it was for some, and the radiative effects of that some are almost impossible to measure, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the Mormon issue played in this game though not as we might have expected.

Frankly, this scares me more than simple anti-Mormon bigotry would have.  It means that religion, with the Mormons currently on point, has moved in the minds of the left from being a sort of quaint notion held by social neanderthals to being the evil enemy.  We know that was true of the LGBT crowd, but if the radiative effects we propose here are in play then that view will also radiate.  The so-called “War on Religion” threatens to expand beyond the border skirmishes we have seen to date.  In this light the HHS mandate moves from another skirmish to a reconnaissance in force.

The closeness of the election and the divided Congress would mitigate against such things, at least on an legislative level.  But this president has a penchant for regulatory overstep and the potential judicial appointments are terrifying to contemplate.

I think we still need a few days the nurse the wound, but we cannot take too long.  There is a lot at stake.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Same-sex marriage | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

By all accounts “Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day” was a great thing.  (I could not make it – the demands of producing income combined with the distance to the nearest store and the wait just rendered in impossible.)  As I read the reports it dawned on me that in coming out for same-sex marriage Obama may have cost himself the election.  Think about it for a minute – Romney’s faith is one of his biggest electoral weaknesses, but the issue of same sex marriage is the one place where Mormons and Catholics and Protestants and Evangelicals have managed to work together quite effectively – Think Prop 8 here in California.  Apparently, Chick-fil-a locations across the country were like very large church “bring-a-casserole” suppers where the casseroles were supplied and church affiliation simply did not matter.

Yep, Wednesday left me feeling a bit cocky about the upcoming election.  Obama’s support of same sex marriage was going to unite one of his opposition’s biggest potential fault lines.  The phrase “biggest political blunder in history” ran through my mind (and there is some minor evidence to support it), though my hyperbole monitor did tell me to let history decide that one.

And then, Thursday morning I saw this video (HT: Gateway Pundit)…

…and I was disheartened.  You see there is another hallmark of us folks of faith.  We really hate to see people unhappy and upset.  And when they act as unpleasantly as the gentleman in the video, we tend to think we are doing something to make them that upset and we tend to back down.  We believe that our faith makes us better, and therefore more attractive people.  If something about our faith makes people this angry with us, then it seems logical that we must be doing something wrong with our faith.  This is particularly true because we tend to have only the best of intentions and forget that many people do not.

And sometimes we just cave because we are weak and we want the unpleasant noise to stop.

According to Wizbang, the unpleasant young man in the video has lost his job.  That is one for not caving to incivility, but I will not be he least bit surprised to see the young man blame “hate” for his firing in an upcoming YouTube video, ratcheting up the incivility until someone gives him a job just to make him shut up.  I think we have all seen similar things happen before.

I am now convinced, assured and certain the Mormon card will be played in a big way before this thing is over.  Obama has thrown his bone to the same sex marriage community and that community directly blames the CJCLDS for Prop 8.  That community, more than any other politicaly active community in history, has shown a propensity to use unpleasantness (he said, putting it mildly) to achieve their ends.  The same sex marriage community suffered another hard blow on Wednesday.  They are planning a same-sex “kiss in” at Chick-fil-a’s across the nation in retaliation today – I doubt they will be as nice about their demonstrations as Wednesday’s crowds were.

The press remains eager to talk Mormonism.  The press has, finally, caught up with this blog on the good work Romney did with religious voters on his foreign trip.  And the Boston Globe, ever ready to bang on Romney, tied his culture remarks in Israel to his Mormon faith (see the last two paragraphs of the long piece).  There is little doubt in my mind that when the same-sex marriage community unleashes the Mormon issue, something they will do very loudly and very unpleasantly, the press will take the cue and run with it.

Mormons especially will need resolve in the face of the coming onslaught.  But their historic migration demonstrates that such resolve is deep in their make-up.  I am more worried about the rest of us.  Will we give in just to make the the ugly noise stop?

I pray not.

Posted in Reading List, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Same-sex marriage, Understanding Religion | 7 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post