The Obama Administration has updated the White House website to include visitors logs. This is a wonderful development and even though I don’t generally agree with many of the things that the administration is doing, this kind of transparency should be applauded. We need more transparency.
However, I thought it was super funny that the service that they have chosen to use to publish the visitor log data on the web, Socrata, has a button right at the top of the display that says “Socialize This.” Almost every other service in the world uses the word “Share” on their links and buttons for posting information to social networks like twitter or facebook.
It’s a Freudian slip from the collective administration subconscious.
In this post I intend to draw a controversial analogy between the subprime mortgage and credit crisis and the resulting economic upheaval and the potential societal upheaval that could result from the redefinition of marriage.
To set things up, let me share my personal experience with the economic crisis.
The State of Utah’s website is terrible for people trying to find information about the 2008 election. Why isn’t there an obvious link to voter information right on the front page in big, bold type? And even once you have found the “Election and Voting” link in the “Government” drop-down menu, you still have to crawl through a bunch of hard-to-navigate links and sift through a ton information, some of it out-dated, to figure out where you are supposed to vote, who are the candidates for your particular area, etc.
Well, part of the reason is that the official Utah voter website isn’t on utah.gov. No, that would make too much sense. It is at www.LeaveYourPrint.com . Which doesn’t make any sense at all, because finger prints are not required to vote in Utah.
The Leave Your Print website IS the official government voter portal. So why isn’t there a big announcement for it right on the homepage of utah.gov? 21 Days left before the election and there isn’t a single link to LeaveYourprint.com anywhere from the official state website?
The LDS Church has a new official website, PreservingMarriage.org to support their efforts to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in California. Check it out. Also, LDS members everywhere can help support the effort by embedding church sponsored widgets and video from the site into their own blogs, websites, and facebook or myspace accounts. Check out the video below and embed it on your own website. You can get the embed code at the website.
I watched the Vice-Presidential Debate last night. I think both candidates did quite well.
If you missed it you can watch it online at:
One issue that stuck out to me that hasn’t received much commentary in LDS circles that I have seen is the exchange concerning same-sex marriage and rights policies of the respective candidates (probably because everyone is sick of the topic in general).
In his first response to the issue, Biden clearly stated, “We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.” (emphasis mine)
So Biden, either on purpose, or by Freudian slip, refers to “committed couples in a same-sex marriage” as if it were a given. Perhaps he meant “same-sex relationship” but he said “same-sex marriage.”
Then, after Palin had clearly stated that she supports rights for same-sex couples, but not if it means changing the definition of marriage to anything other than between one man and one woman, the moderator asked Biden for a non-nuanced clarification. “Do you support gay marriage?”
Biden responded, “No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.”
It seems clear to me that, despite the moderator’s exhortation to avoid nuance, Biden’s words were very calculated to be nuanced. Either that or garbled and self-contradictory. On the one hand he says that they do not support redefining marriage from a civil side, but then he continues on to say that the decision of what to call it should be left up to individual faiths. So which is it? Do they think that it should it be defined by the civil government or should it be left up to individual faiths?
If Obama and Biden do not support redefining civil marriage, then how is that not a contradiction of the letter sent from Obama to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club in July, previously discussed on this blog, in which he not only opposes Proposition 8 in California, which would specifically define civil marriage as between one man and one woman, but that he wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which is what protects individual states from having to recognize same-sex marriage contracted in other states.
So which is it? Is the Obama campaign for or against redefining civil marriage to include same-sex couples or not? On a state level or a federal level?
The Issues section of the Obama website is woefully vague. Which section should I read to find his same-sex marriage position? Civil Rights? Nope. Nothing there. Family? Nope. Nada there either.
Let’s try site google to search the site for gay . Results: A number of blog posts, some of which seem to say he is against redefining marriage, a PDF Flyer that discusses his support for “Full Civil Unions” and against a federal marriage amendment, but no definitive, official statements about same-sex marriage.
Let’s try googling the site for marriage . Results: The same PDF Flyer, plus a different one with essentially the same content, more of the same blog posts. No definitive, official statement on same-sex marriage policy.
Why doesn’t Obama have a clear statement on same-sex marriage in an easy to find location on his website? If, as Joe Biden claimed in the debate, they are both against changing the civil definition of marriage, then why isn’t there a clear, easy to find statement?
Their lack of a clear position reinforces the view that McCain and Palin have both tried to pin on Obama by contrast: that he tells different groups contradictory things depending on what they want to hear. He wants the gay and lesbian vote, and he wants to attract moderate Christians, who don’t want to redefine marriage but are attracted to his other policies. So he lets them both believe that he is on their side on the issue of homosexual marriage.
I want a definitive statement. And I think that LDS Members who are concerned about the redefinition of marriage in California and elsewhere should demand a statement before they decide to vote for Obama.
To be fair, it isn’t obvious from the main Issues section of the McCain website where to find a statement on same-sex marriage, but if you poke around a little, there it is under Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life
McCain’s statement is basically that traditional marriage is the ideal and to leave it up to the states to enact constitutional amendments defining marriage according to the will of their own people and not up to the courts.
I would have liked something a bit stronger, but at least it is clear and relatively accessible on the website.
Here is the full transcript of the pertinent portion of the debate:
IFILL: The next round of—pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted—same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair.
It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?
PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that’s sometimes where those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, if there’s any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don’t agree with me on this issue.
But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.
But I will tell Americans straight up that I don’t support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
But I’m being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.
IFILL: Let’s try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let’s move to foreign policy.
Sorry that my blog has been so silent lately…I have been up to my ears in more important responsibilities.
But since today are the Utah State Neighborhood Caucuses, I wanted to encourage all of you to attend your Precinct meeting tonight.
I have been involved with my local precincts for a number of years now.
Did you know that unless you participate in the Caucuses tonight it is very likely that some of your elected representatives will be put into office without you having a say in it? For some elections the winner is decided only by those delegates you elect in your caucuses, so that there is never a primary or general election vote.
A friend of mine spent the time to quickly write a Beginner’s Guide to the Utah Neighborhood Caucuses, which I am posting here for those of you who want to understand what the caucus is for and why it is important that you attend.
If you haven’t watched Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” address, you should take twenty minutes or so and do so. A copy of the address as prepared for delivery is available. However, I recommend watching the speech rather than just reading the script. His delivery was great and he exhibited a great deal of charisma, passion, and eloquence. If you only read the transcript you will miss out.
I’ll update this post with embedded video when it becomes available.
There were many memorable and quotable parts the speech. I liked that Romney referred to Abraham Lincoln’s 1838 address before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield Illinois on The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions in which Lincoln describes our nation’s “political religion” as the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. The relevant part of Lincoln’s speech referred to by Romney is as follows:
Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges;—let it be written in Primmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.
.
While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.
.
When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.
Lincoln’s address is also worth reading in full if you get a moment.
Primarily I want to draw attention to one part of Romney’s address in particular, if only because it is something I have been meaning to write about myself for some months.
Romney said:
I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
This statement reminded me of an article I read back in July from The Wall Street Journal entitled In Europe, God Is (Not) Dead that I have been meaning to blog about.
Basically, the thesis of the article is that Europe is less religious than America not because of modernism but because established religions thwart religious competition:
Now even Europe, the heartland of secularization, is raising questions about whether God really is dead. The enemy of faith, say the supply-siders, is not modernity but state-regulated markets that shield big, established churches from competition. In America, where church and state stand apart, more than 50% of the population worships at least once a month. In Europe, where the state has often supported—but also controlled—the church with money and favors, the rate in many countries is 20% or less.
…
In 1776, he says, around 17% of Americans belonged to churches.
…
In the U.S., the American Revolution ended ecclesiastical hegemony in the 11 colonies that had an established church and unleashed a raucous tide of religious competition. As Methodists, Baptists, Shakers and other churches proliferated, church-going rose, reaching around 50% in the early part of the 20th century, he says.
.
Europe never developed such a religious bazaar. The Church of Sweden, the Church of England, the Catholic Church in Italy and France, state-funded churches in Germany and others lost their de-facto “monopoly” status to other denominations over a century ago. But they retained their ties to the state and economic privileges.
Mitt Romney appears to be propagating this theory in his speech. It is an intriguing idea, with a lot of room for debate.
As many of you know, a political battle is raging in Utah this fall over the issue of School Vouchers. Oak Norton, who has been a prominent thorn in the side of the local school system for some time now, has evidence suggesting that individuals may have been illegally using their positions within School Districts, and District resources available to them, to push their Anti-Voucher agenda.
In an anti-voucher PowerPoint presentation he acquired, Oak uncovered given to Oak by a nameless source, the the following incriminating meta-data was noticed:
Created: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:08 PM
Modified: Friday, October 12, 2007 10:13 AM
Last saved by: Cache County School District
Revision number: 30
Total editing time: 689 Minutes
Here is the screenshot:
I have written about this before, but wanted to cover some of the same topics in the context of the issue in Utah of distributing “In God We Trust” posters to be displayed in the public school classrooms.
When those with more liberal views than I say that the nation as the founders established it was not a Christian Nation, they are superficially correct. However, the nation was arguably founded explicitly as a Theistic Nation, a fact which they often ignore or deny. And Christianity had an undeniable influence on the formation of the United States and its government even if it was not explicitly Christian. While there was to be no established religious sect or creed, the government and nation were expected to officially recognize the authority of a vague, generic Supreme Creator as the source and judge of their laws and actions and to recognize the necessity of His approbation of their collective actions.
I have not seen the movies “V for Vendetta” and “Children of Men” nor have I listened to “Year Zero,” the new album released this week by the explicit rock band Nine Inch Nails. And because I avoid movies and music with “R” rated or explicit content, I am not likely to in the future. However, from what I can gather from news reports, critical reviews, and conversations with people who are familiar with them, they all attempt to push into the mainstream a view that is popular among the most radical liberals and a few of the most reactionary conservatives: that current events, the War on Terrorism, and the policies of Conservative Republicans and especially the Bush administration are intended to overturn and replace our constitutional Republic with some kind of corporate oligarchy or Christian theocracy.
This view is rampant among the more radical, liberal or progressive blogs and forums.
I think that a conspiratorial view of current events and of history has a certain natural appeal. It plucks the same psychological strings that make gossip attractive and wide spread.
I spent nearly my entire weekend (night and day) extracting, preparing, encoding, and uploading digital video. I am happy to say that the ordeal is mostly over and I’m very excited about the result.
I know what a bad feeling it is to go into the voting booth and to look at empty names, with no idea who they are or what they want to accomplish other than what I can assume from their party affiliation. So, as part of my volunteer efforts for Citizens’ Resource we now have short, online video presentations by nearly all of the candidates that will appear in contested races on the Utah County ballot available on Google video.
Hopefully all of you will take advantage of email, blogs, and the word-of-mouth power of “viral marketing” to help as many people view these videos as possible before voting on November 7th.
From the Citizens’ Resource 2006 Candidate Preview:
From the Citizens’ Resource 2006 Candidate Preview:
From the Citizens’ Resource 2006 Candidate Preview:
