Utah's Gay Marriage HAS affected my marriage

Since Friday's ruling, I've written several versions of a post about the fact that people can get married in Utah whether they are gay or straight.

None have been quite right.

Most;y it was a rehash of this post from 18 months ago about my position on marriage.  Since then, I've learned that my Great Great Grandfather Aagard was also a polygamist.  That's him down front in black.  He was thrown in jail for practicing a "non-traditional" form of marriage.

However, I don't want to get into the past.  I want to look to the future.

I'm a straight single Mormon.  I'm also nearing my 35th Birthday, which puts me at least a decade into "menace to society" status.  While finding a nice woman and getting married has been a desire of mine, it's hasn't been a top priority.  That all changed last night with this picture from the Tribune of people camping out at the Salt Lake County Government Center:

That's right.  People were camping out to be the first in line to get a marriage license.  Have you ever seen anything like that?  It was 30 degrees and precipitating most of the night last night, and these people were so excited about getting married that they camped out like they were waiting for concert tickets or a really good Black Friday deal.

That's commitment to marriage.  I don't know too many heterosexual couples that would do that to get their license.  At one point, the line was reported to be 1000 COUPLES long.  Amazing.

People who didn't think they could ever get married 72 hours before are waiting overnight in the cold and standing in long lines just for the privilege, and I can't ever muster up the ability to get a date?  Things need to change for me.

So, a big thank you to the Gay Marriage Pioneers who got married last Friday and today.  You made me more committed to getting married.  Because if it's that important to you, it should really be more important to me.  And maybe I'll be headed down to the Clerk's office soon to get my own marriage license.  in the meantime, I'm really going to enjoy your wedding reception at the City and County Building tonight.

My View on Marriage

The gentleman on the left is my third-great-grandfather John R Winder.  Born in England in 1821, he became the manager of a shoe store in Liverpool.  After joining the LDS Church in Liverpool, he arrived in Utah on October 10, 1853, exactly 99 years before his great-great granddaughter (and my mother) was born.

While in Utah, he engaged in several business ventures, including Winder Dairy, which still exists today (as Winder Farms).  Winder led the Nauvoo Legion against Johnson's Army in the Utah War, and served as Chairman of the "People's Party" while seeking to establish a two-party system of politics in Utah.  He also served as a delegate to serveral state Constitutional Conventions.

Winder was called to be the Second Counselor of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church in 1887.  As Second Counselor, he oversaw the completion of the interior of the Salt Lake Temple.  He was called to be the First Counselor in the First Presidency in 1901, a position he held until his death in 1910.

John Winder married Ellen Walters in 1845 in England.  He Married Tilda Jensen (my Third-Great Grandmother) in the President's Office in Salt Lake City in 1855.  In 1857, he married Elizabeth Parker in the Endowment House in Salt Lake City.  In 1893, he married Maria Burnham.

That's right, John R Winder practiced marriage that went beyond "one man one woman."  When the government banned plural marriage in 1887, they were in the wrong.  Any attempts since then to define marriage are equally as wrong.

I believe that marriage is a religious ordinance.  As a religious ordinance, it is between men and women.  Much like I believe that baptism, another religious ordinance, is to be done by immersion, and the baptism should only be performed on people older than 8.  Should the State of Utah pass a constitutional amendment banning the baptism of infants, so as to preserve the sanctity of traditional baptism?  Should Massachusetts ban immersion?

And, if we are to regulate marriage, how far do we go?  I'm just waiting for Alabama to pass a law further "protecting traditional marriage" by ensuring that marriage for eternity (as practiced by Mormons) is banned.  After all, the tradition is "til death do we part" is it not?

The "Sanctity" of Marriage

If my friend John has been in a committed relationship for 9 years.  There is a lot more "sanctity" in that relationship than in my friend Sam's 18 month marriage.  Or my friend Tim's 8 month marriage.  Newt Gingrich has married two people who previously held the title of "mistress" before they were his wife.  Sorry, but "marriage," as it stands now, really means nothing.

But, if Gay Marriage were legal, The Church would have to perform gay marriages.

Well, that part is a complete lie.  A Baptist marrying a Catholic is legal, but it doesn't mean they are legally allowed to be married in the Temple.  In fact, I have many good friends who are both LDS that were not allowed to get married in the Temple.  So, to say the Church would have to start performing Gay Marriages is, well, being dishonest.

I'm confused, what is your position?

Well, marriage should be a religious institution, unregulated by the Government.  However, it has also become a civil contract entered into by two people and endorsed  by government.  And, as a civil contract, it should be open to any two adults who want to enter into the contract.

Interesting Stuff for May 5

There are many things that I find interesting that I don't ant to devote a whole post to. So, I'll post them here as a "morning roundup" type of thing, set to post the next morning. It needs a name, so if you have any ideas, leave them in the comments.

*States won by both Kerry and Obama have lower divorce rates and lower teen birth rates than those that were won by both Bush and McCain. (The Volokh Conspiracy)

*Glenn Beck and I agree on something: It's important to read terror suspects captured in the U.S. their Miranda Rights. (Think Progress)

*There was a plan for containing and burning off an oil spill in Gulf of Mexico. In 1994.Same plan we are going to institute just as soon as we can bring in the equipment from South America. Because Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations didn't buy any. (Mobile Press-Register)

*Phoenix Suns to wear "Los Suns" in honor of Cinco de Mayo, and because they don't want their Latino fans to thin they are in favor of the new immigration law. (Deseret News)

*Carl Wimmer goes the rounds in the comments section of my blog.

*Bob Benentt possibly running a "type-in" election? Vancour thinks so (KTVX)

*Be the smartest Gringo at the Office or your Cinco de Mayo party when you bust out facts about the Battle of Puebla.

Applying WimmerLogic to Carl Wimmer's Pet Issues

From the same article from my previous post:

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, is one who has opposed a cell phone ban on the principle of individual liberty.
"Government does not need to mandate every good idea," said Wimmer, who acknowledged that driving while phoning may be dangerous. "We are a free people."

So, let's use this reasoning on some of Wimmer's pet issues:

Abortion:

Sure, you're taking the life of another person into your hands, but we are a free people. Government does not need to mandate every good idea..... Oh, that's not his position? Never mind.

Marriage:

We are a free people. We should be able to choose whom we marry. Government does not need to mandate every god idea..... Oh, that's not his position? Never mind.

Hmmm... Wimmerfail, anyone?

-Bob

Annother Viewpoint on Marriage

Marriage has been on my mind a lot lately.

No, not mine. I'm still looking for someone.

But, marriage, and the institution of it has been.

You see, I see marriage as a sacred institution. And as a sacred institution, I don't want my government poking it's head into who I will marry. Much like I don't them coming in and telling me I have to wheat bread and grape juice for the Sacrament.

Furthermore, if someone's religious beliefs allow them to marry 10 wives, their cousin, or someone of the same gender, then so be it.

Because having government get involved only serves to cheapen marriage, not strengthen it. Imagine if they performed baptisms at the County Clerk's office.

So, there's my view on the subject. I decided to write this, because of another post I read From the Mind of Murph:

There has been something on my mind for the last few months and it has to do with my cousin, (who… incidentally… lives in California) and her marriage to a lovely young lady, a marriage for which I am very happy for them both. Yes, gentle reader; I did say HER marriage to a young LADY, and that I am HAPPY.
Now most of you who have read my blog before know that I am LDS (a Mormon) and …somewhat… of a conservative Christian. But, my cousin’s marriage hasn’t bothered me at all… going against all stereotypes of what the Christian right is supposed to think about the topic of gay marriage. Guess you can’t trust stereotypes of any kind… hu.
This bothered me for some reason, it shouldn’t have, but it did. And I thought that… well, maybe I wasn’t living my religion. Or maybe… I needed to go confess something to my bishop, I’m not sure what, but something. I mean, as a (somewhat) conservative Christian, I should be condemning the marriage… right?
Well, I found out why I’m not bugged about her marriage, and why I shouldn’t be bugged…

Continue reading here.

-Bob

10 reasons why gay marriage is wrong

(stolen from KVNU, who stole it from a Facebook group)

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

John McCain -- adulterer or polygamist?

Here's a little relationship timeline for you:

July 3, 1965: John McCain marries Carol Shepp.
Mid-70's: John has several extramarital affairs
April 1979: John, still married to Carol, meets Cindy Hensley in Hawaii
April 1979-??: John and Cindy travel between Arizona and Washington DC to continue their relationship.
January 7, 1980: John McCain last "cohabitation" with Carol McCain
February 19, 1980: John first sues Carol for divorce.
March 6, 1980: John Applies for Marriage License.
April 2, 1980: John and Carol's Divorce finalized.
May 17, 1980: John and Cindy get married.

Imagine the "family values" uproar if John were a Democrat....

-BOb

The almost-commentofthemonth -- The Government and Marriage

Here's the post with the comment, if you're interested.

It gets the almost-comment-of-the-month because the poster is anon. Come up with a psudonym if you would like, then you can win.

Anyway, to the topic at hand:

When I got married, I had to go to the county offices and fill out a GOVERNMENT application.

#1: Local governemnt has always had contol over marriages, a fact conservatives used to embrace. #2. The hope is to get government even further out of marriage.

OK, this next one, my comments are going to [look like this].

They asked me questions like how old I was (the government won't let me get married if I'm not a certain age!) [16 in Utah, 14 in many other states], whether I was already married (the government won't let me get married if I'm currently married to someone else!) [and why not?], whether I was the opposite gender of the person I intended to marry (in the state where I got married, they wouldn't allow it if we were the same gender!), whether I was related to the person I intended to marry (they would have stopped me had we been brother and sister, or even first cousins!) [second cousins can't marry either, unless they are like 50. Oh, and it's nice to know you don't live in West Virginia]

A government official had to sign my marriage license, and I had to take it to the LDS temple and have the sealer sign the government document in his capacity as a government official.

No, the temple official signed it as a religious official, who has been given athority by the local governemnt to perform marriages. Under current rules, individual churches can decide who can and who cannot marry.

For instance, I have a minister's licence in the state of Minnesota. Whith that licence, I can legally perform marriages in Minnesota. However, the Church has not given me the authority to perform the marriage, so I cannot perform the marriage in the eyes of the Church. For that reason, I would be unable to perform a marriage legally in Utah.

-Bob

What Really Endangers Marriage

I've sent a copy of this to Sens. Hatch and Bennett. It's a must-read, from annother DailyKos Diary:

I'm bone tired and disillusioned. I have listened to the Senate all day on C-Span and all the polticial pandering from the Republicans on the gay marriage ammendment. It makes me sick.

You know what is endangering my 30 year marriage right now? No, not gays and lesbians...they aren't even close. Not how someone decides to have sex...no, not that either. It's how am I once again, going to break the news to my huband after he has worked hard all day long, that we are in the hole again and it's a week before payday. I have 3 prescriptions to buy in a few minutes and I don't have the extra cash to buy them. One is my heart meds the other two are medications that are used to treat depression for me and my daughter. My co-pays are going to come up to almost $100 alone. I still have to buy gas and groceries for this week. In two months I am going to have to come up with college money for the fall semester....almost $6,000.

I have medical bills that need to be paid now. I'm so tired of seeing my husband working and doing the best he can when his best is never good enough. I'm trying to get a job but with my medical problems, it's making it hard. I just suffered a two week bout of asthma and I have a whole host of other problems that I won't even get into.

We are not a low income family. My husband makes over 70K a year but with a house payment and 2 car payments...it's taking everything we have and more. I can remember a time when we had a substantial savings account and we were contributing a good portion to his 401K and we were saving a little for our daughter's education. It's gone. All of it with the exception of the 401K. We have pratically no savings left and have little hope of any in the near future. The economy for me and my family sucks right now. Groceries and gas are out of sight. My health insurance is going out the roof. What are we supposed to do?

We don't spend a lot of money and try to live as frugal as possible. I'm just so tired of it never being enough.

This is more of a rant than anything and I appreciate you all allowing me to get his off my chest.

While watching the Senate go through this bullshit today, I just sat and cried. Who is speaking for me and my family right now? We need long term help. Not political pandering. Gays are no threat to me and never have been. Losing my home is a real concern. I need my medications and so does my daughter.

If any politicans read this...please do something. Go to your job tomorrow and say enough is enough. The American people are tired and want someone to represent their real needs and concerns. Please.

Orrin Hatch, bigot

At least accoring to a diarist at DailyKos.

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."

In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

[...]

But the larger point, Orrin, is your assumption that your rarified body could never, just never be a crew of bigots. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the US Senate has not just occasionally, but usually been a crew of bigots. It's natural state is a state of bigotry. 200 years ago, most respected gentlemen of the upper chamber either had slaves or had no problem with slavery. 100 years ago, most senators thought the idea of women voting was downright preposterous. 50 years ago, most Senators supported some form of de jure segregation. 40 years ago, most Senators believed we had to fight the Viet Cong, because all Communists were all the same, no matter where they were. And 3 years ago, your assclown colleagues fell for an argument that we had to fight a largely secular Shiite country "over there," so we wouldn't have to fight almost exclusively hyperreligious Sunnis originating from other countries, "over here." While you're trying to come up with an explanation of how the last example isn't derived from bigotry, I'll be over here, reading "War and Peace." Backwards. In Espironto. Let me know when you've got something.

While I'm waiting, I'll conclude with this: the reason this marriage amendment matters isn't because it defends the sanctity of holy matrimony. If you gave one amoeba's tiny popcorn shit about marriage, you'd go after the one serious societal ill currently harming relationships the most: crushing consumer debt. But, natch, you won't. The reason it matters is because the US Senate has always been a house of bigots, but over the course of time, it always come around, leaving the bigots behind. And the fact that you couldn't even get a majority in the Senate to go for your goofy ass Amendment indicates that the upper chamber is about to leave this bigotry behind as well.

Oh, and the pro-FMA people actually lost two votes from last time. So the momentum is going backwards for those guys.

-Bob

Don't confuse FMA with Marriage

The Republicans are doing a good job of making the Federal Marriage Amendment synonamous with marriage. In other words, if you're against the FMA, you're against marriage.

The the comments section of Pete Ashdown's blog, "Mike" tries to do it.

The best reply ever on the subject came from an expert on Pete Ashdown's views on the subject, probably even more an expert than Pete himself.

It was his wife, Robin.

It is important not to confuse the “Marriage Amendment” with marriage. Mike is correct in stating that marriage is very important to our society. Strong marriages and families make for a strong country. I am very thankful for familial support and also for the support and strength my marriage gives me and our 3 children.

I think all of us agree that strong families benefit every aspect of society. Where we disagree is on HOW to strengthen the family unit. Families who have economic stability, whose children are adaquately educated, whose health care needs are met, who are free to worship as they see fit, and who have hope for the future are vastly better off than those who do not have such opportunities. The “Marriage Amendment” does nothing to strengthen families in a real way, instead it was created as a smoke screen to divert good people who believe in strong families from focusing on how we, as a society, can truly support the family unit. Meanwhile corporate chronies of legislators continue to enrich themselves while the rest of us are distracted in a fight over gay marriage.

“Limited, small government” to me means that the government stays out of my personal life, allowing me my free agency. Instead of Congress wasting time and resources debating what a marriage certificate should look like, I would like them to work on strengthning the country in real ways, promoting health, economic stability, and protection to our families.

I am lucky, my husband’s company has been successful and has given our little family the financial resources to buy a house, put food on the table each day, and pay for our health care (including dental). Some of my brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors have not been so lucky. In fact,our neighborhood school, two blocks from our house, has one of the highest homeless rates in the state. The “Marriage Amendment” would do nothing to move these children and their families out of poverty and on the road to stability. My husband, Pete Ashdown, is pro-family and when people realize that he puts the interests and well-being of families before that of mega-corporations, they will elect him as Utah’s next Senator. That’s when they will have true protection for their families.

By the way, the vote to condinue discussion on the amendment failed, 48-49.

-Bob