All Aboard!

Today's cartoon in The Daily Iowan:

Everywhere you turn, another politician (Republicans and Democrats alike) is coming out in support of "marriage equality." They are saying it's "the right thing to do" and that they have "evolved" ... and it doesn't hurt that public support for "marriage equality" has made it safe for them to "evolve" these days.

This weekend was General Conference for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and among the many things I was listening for I found some very interesting and reassuring teachings on marriage and its true place in the world today. I'm sure there are some statements that will make people pretty mad, but they were meaningful and I took them to be truth.

Here are the talks I thought were especially relevant. The texts aren't available online yet, but you can watch video or listen to audio here.

President Boyd K. Packer - Saturday Morning Session
Elder David A. Bednar - Saturday Afternoon Session
Elder Robert D. Hales - Priesthood Session
President Dieter F. Uchtdorf - Priesthood Session
Elder L. Tom Perry - Sunday Morning Session

Supreme Troll

It's rare that I come up with a cartoon that even cracks me up.

This one didn't even require much drawing, not even Photoshopping. It was all Microsoft Paint. I was pretty proud of it when I finished, I think it's one of my top five favorites.

The only problem was that it was originally in color, but when I changed it to black and white for the newspaper I somehow deleted the original color version. Maybe I'll get around to re-creating it sometime.

It sort of reminds me of this cartoon, from summer 2010, with the "Photoshopping" and social media:

For more of my thoughts on the actual same-sex marriage issue, click here.

Behind the Prop 8 Ball

In today's The Daily Iowan:

It's funny that, given my interest in the Supreme Court, this is my first time actually drawing the nine justices in a cartoon. (Although I did draw a cartoon for Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings.)

If I were still drawing cartoons for The Daily Universe, I probably would have drawn something different. But for here, I went with something neutral, that could express the situation no matter which side of the debate you're on. I'm sure The Daily Iowan would have loved a "marriage equality!" cartoon, but for that they would need to ask somebody else.

I have surprisingly a lot to say on the subject of gay rights and same-sex marriage. I won't repeat it all here, but if you're curious, you can read these previous posts of mine:

Evolution?

It Gets Better

Good, Better, Best (and a follow-up: Letter Aftermath)

Much Ado About Nothing (and a follow-up: Update - Church's response)

Signing Off

I'll just add a few more thoughts.

1) In forming my opinion, I do my best to follow the teachings of my church and prophet. A lot of people (more and more these days) would say that I'm a blind follower. But I'm not following blindly. The way I see it, the prophet and apostles have answered questions for me, and I'm going to follow those answers. And I have faith that these men speak eternal truth, and speak for God. And I'm willing to reshape or change opinions to align more closely with what they say. Not because I'm a blind follower, but because they are following the truth, and I want to join them. And I can't go that direction, and at the same concede to the growing trends in the world and move in that direction too. Maybe someone feels like he or she can fragment him or herself into a religious, spiritual identity and a secular, "pragmatic" identity. But I try to avoid even making that attempt.

2) By remaining in full support of traditional marriage, I feel like I'm part of an ever-shrinking minority - especially as a 26-year-old, at law school, in Iowa City. It feels like it won't be long before the only people who agree with me are fellow Latter-day Saints (and even people who support traditional marriage in that demographic seem to be shrinking in numbers).

I'm sure to many people, my opinion seems so backward and behind the times, and that it is outright bigotry. But it wasn't long ago that the topic of same-sex marriage was just a matter of differing opinions. That has changed though, rapidly and recently, to a sentiment that supporters of "marriage equality" were just quicker to arrive at an inevitable conclusion, and are impatiently waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. Those supporters assume it's a given that people have an inalienable right to marry whoever they want.

I think a lot of this mentality comes from our retrospective view on the Civil Rights Movement. We know that Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks were the "good guys," and Jim Crow was the "bad guy." And we will go out of our way to make sure we don't follow the footsteps of restaurant owners who kept black people out of their businesses or bus drivers who sent black people to the back seats. They were the "bad guys" in our middle school social studies textbook, and we are not going to repeat their crimes and mistakes. And already, just one generation removed, we have a black president in the White House.

All of that is good and impressive in many ways. And there are many lessons to be learned from the Civil Rights Movement that can be applied to fighting for gay rights. Gay people shouldn't be segregated, shouldn't be discriminated against when renting apartments or offering jobs, shouldn't be bullied, and definitely do not deserve to be victims of violence.

I'm all for gay rights in the sense of treating everybody with the same legal and democratic protections, regardless of their sexual orientation. Certainly, many of the same rights and respects that were fought for in the Civil Rights Movement deserve to be given to the gay community as well. In fact, I would probably support any "gay rights" that the gay community and its supporters want - except marriage.

But saying the fight for "marriage equality" is "today's Civil Rights Movement" is too simplistic. And I don't just mean that marching in Washington is different from changing your Facebook profile picture or tweeting. Being black and being gay are totally different. And fighting for equal protection of the law and fighting against discrimination and fighting for marriage are totally different.


3) I see a lot of people who resolve this issue for themselves by saying, "I just think government should get out of marriage altogether." There's probably a good argument for that somewhere. But with some people I know who take that stance, I suspect they use that argument because it satisfies them if they want to keep one foot on both sides of the debate, and reconcile both their religious beliefs and their interest in keeping pace with the world's so-called "progress."

I, for one, am glad that there are certain governmental privileges for people who are married, I'm glad that my relationship with my wife is recognized by my government as well as my church (more on that below). Marriage has been a fundamental unit of our law since medieval times (and in our society and human existence since Adam and Eve). I don't think it would be easy to just remove it, and even if it were, I don't want to try.

4) Some people who are familiar with the Church compare this to the revelation on the priesthood in 1978, which opened up the priesthood to men of all races and ethnicities. These people say the Church eventually "came around" on that issue, and so they'll eventually come around on this one. And they eagerly anticipate the day when they can tell people like me, "I told you so!"

But, again, race and sexual orientation are totally different. We don't know all the reasons why black men couldn't hold the priesthood for about 150 years. I do know that through the course of history, God has revealed His gospel in bits and pieces, to segments of the population, one at a time (like revealing His gospel first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles - see Acts 10). And I do know that by opening the priesthood to all worthy men, regardless of race, the Lord was furthering his work on the earth.

Same-sex marriage is different. Allowing men of all races to have the priesthood doesn't change what priesthood is. But allowing for same-sex couples to get married does change the definition of what marriage is. And, of course, any member of the Church knows that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God," for so many reasons (that I can get into more at another time). The gospel teaches us that not even every heterosexual marriage will be in effect for eternity - only those marriages done in the holy temple, under priesthood authority, and when the husband and wife are faithful to their covenants.

For the Church to embrace same-sex marriage, or give it the same validity as traditional marriage, would obstruct the Lord's work, rather than advance it. The most "progressive" reach I could ever fathom the Church making would be to do nothing and withdraw from the debate, continuing to recognize only traditional marriage while the entire world around them preaches for "marriage equality." As time goes on, the Church could possibly be more tolerant and could possibly be more sympathetic to the gay community - but I don't see how the Church would ever be accepting of the practice of same-sex marriage. That would be being "lukewarm" about one of our purposes of life and an essential component of the plan of salvation.

5) I'll end with these words from my friend Chris Hill:

"This [belief] has nothing to do with how we feel about homosexuals as individuals. I believe they are incredible people, I'm sure better than me in so many ways. This just explains what I believe to be the divine nature of marriage and the family. Love is love; and all have the right to love whom they please; but marriage is marriage."

Buckeye Power

More law school news!

I got a congratulatory email today from Ohio State!

This one wasn't a surprise, sort of like the news from Baylor. But, maybe like Baylor, I'll get a full-tuition scholarship!

So now that makes the score Acceptances 4, Rejections 0. Whoo hoo!

Speaking of Ohio State, I love this photo in Ohio State's viewbook:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, represent.

In other law school news, I was approved for a fee waiver from Stanford! So I'll be sending in that application straightaway. Stanford is expensive to the point of being prohibitive, so I don't think I would go even if I got in. But if I do get in, I'll have bragging rights forever.

BYU Level: Completed!

I'm a college grad!

On Friday at 1:22 p.m. MST, I emailed a newspaper article I wrote about our COMMS 406 class project, which meant I had completed all my work for my last semester before earning my bachelor's degree.

By the way, here's the BYU ElevenNEWS article and video about the project:



So now, I just wait for final grades to be calculated and for my diploma to come in the mail. And then in April I'll walk in the commencement ceremony.

It's hard to believe I'm done! Except for my two years in Argentina, since kindergarten I've never had a break from school longer than summer vacation.

This break won't last forever, since I'm planning on law school in a few months. But for now, I'm done with essays, reading assignments, quizzes, exams, textbooks, Blackboard, group projects, PowerPoint presentations and 8 a.m. classes. I like school in general, but there are parts of it I won't miss.

 What I will miss is working at The Daily Universe. My time has sadly come to an end. The newsroom was a home away for home, as much for Erin and Allisyn as it was for me, and I loved being a part of the Universe.

What's really more impressive is that Erin graduated. It's something we usually took for granted, we always expected that each of us would graduate from college. Even before I met Erin, I always knew I would be married to a college graduate. And it was always important to Erin and her family too, enough that one of the conditions for Erin's dad to give her hand in marriage was that I had to support her and allow her to graduate from college.

But from the outside looking in, Erin's accomplishment is really remarkable. She became a wife and a mother and still earned a bachelor's degree. It seems like most people I know either put off motherhood until after college or put off college until after motherhood (or, more often than not, never get back to school). I'm not saying those women are taking an easy way out or are falling short in any way. It's certainly not a requirement to be a mother or to be a college graduate in order to be a successful human being. But I know it was important to Erin to do both, and for us it worked out that she did both at the same time. It wasn't always easy, which makes me all the more impressed with her.

In our little family, right now we plan to be more traditional, with me bringing home the bacon and with Erin as a full-time mother. So some of you might wonder why Erin worked so hard for a degree. The way we see it, a college degree is far more valuable than a gateway to a career. Even if Erin is never employed again, we know being a college graduate will make her a better wife and mother. I have no doubt that she will use her college education every day (and not just so she can help our children with their homework). Education is for more than just getting a job, it should make a person who he or she is. (And, besides, circumstances could change and make it necessary for Erin to get a job someday.)

(Click here and read the comments.)

---------------------------------

So, now what?

I have a four-month internship at The (Provo) Daily Herald starting in January! I'm pretty excited. I'll be writing for The Ticket, the weekly arts & entertainment section. I've been a reporter or an editor for two years, but I haven't done much writing about movies and music. So this internship will be a good mixture of familiarity and new challenges.

The internship is only minimum wage and part-time, so I'm still looking for another job. I filled out an application for J Dawgs, everybody's favorite hot dog stand in Provo. They're opening a new location in Orem which means they're hiring. It seems like a fun place to work, and there's someone in my ward who works there and likes it a lot. We'll see if I hear back from them.

In the near future, I plan on finishing the rest of my law school applications. I've finished three (Texas, North Carolina, Notre Dame) out of 14 on my list. So I have a lot of work to do. I also am waiting for my second LSAT score to come in. If it takes the same amount of time as it did in October, then it should come on Dec. 26.

Other than law school applications, I'm looking forward to a couple of weeks of reading Moneyball (I got it as a birthday gift, and only now have time to read it), watching How I Met Your Mother, meeting up with childhood friends and celebrating Christmas during a relaxing vacation at home in Oregon.

Not my best work

Lately I feel like my school assignments across the board have been very subpar.

I had a Spanish phonetics presentation this morning that could have used a little more preparation. I did some research earlier this week, but my two partners did most of theirs the night before. I'm not complaining about them, they still got it done on time and I've certainly been guilty in the past. But our presentation did feel like it was thrown together, and unfortunately it was obvious enough that our professor told us after class that he noticed that. I also knew that our research was inconsistent, and that we were missing things ... unfortunately, the examples the professor pointed out happened to be on my end.

Also in Spanish, I got a graded exam back that was way lower than usual. Usually I don't have to work so hard in studying for a Spanish exam. I catch on quickly and memorize phonetic and grammatical rules easily. But I guess an effortless memorization couldn't contain all of the data I was supposed to know for this exam.

The class that has been the most frustrating is my political science class. It's a media and politics class, which I've had more than once in the communications department. So, it should be a cinch, right? And I usually feel like it is, until a graded assignment or exam comes back to me. Every assignment but one has come back with a lower grade than I expected. Everything I've turned it just isn't good enough.

I guess I shouldn't complain about high expectations. But I feel like I'm giving a false impression of myself as a student, like the professor thinks I'm a certain kind of student that I'm truly not.

I wrote a 20-page paper that meant I got probably six hours of sleep in a 72-hour time period, and I know it wasn't my best essay ever but I still got a lower grade than I would have predicted. The professor is offering a chance to edit and rewrite, and I'll certainly add some of those improvements, but a lot of what he's asking I just don't feel like doing. Not out of rebellion or animosity, just out of surrender and burnout.

In my world religions class, I had an exam a little while ago that I didn't do too great on. No real explanation other than that I should have studied more. But there's an easy opportunity for extra credit, which will help me out a lot.

Where I've really fallen behind is my Shakespeare class. I'm supposed to blog twice a week, but in four weeks I've blogged twice. I thought of a plan to live tweet reading King Lear that I still need to get around to. And our class has an ambitious final project that I did nothing about for a long time. But I did make some progress yesterday, so I'm feeling better about it.

Not everything is doom-and-gloom. A great burden was taken from my shoulders right before Thanksgiving when I completed an independent study course finally. Finishing that class means I have completed my political science minor!

And my media law class has been going really well. We did a fun project right before Thanksgiving were we reenacted a Supreme Court case and videotaped it. Then we are all doing a project with that video based on our majors (print journalism, broadcast journalism, public relations, advertising and communications studies) to answer the question "What would happen if TV cameras were allowed in the Supreme Court?" I got to play Chief Justice John Roberts. And I'm writing an article about our class project that could go in The Daily Universe next semester. So I guess that's pretty cool.

I don't really know why I'm not bringing my A game like usual. I know I'm married with a baby, and preparing for law school and another LSAT. Life is always stressful in one way or another. But I don't really feel overwhelmed or distracted.

Maybe what this means is that it's time to graduate.

From someecards (It's a hilarious site, but also pretty vulgar, watch out)

Good, better, best

Here are some thoughts on the latest Daily Universe opinion page controversy:

It all started with a letter to the editor written by Alex Hairston, one of my old sports reporters and fellow sports editors. He wrote about a conversation he had with a friend about the TV show "Modern Family." One of the families on the show is a same-sex couple with an adopted little girl.

http://modern-family.maxupdates.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/modern-family.jpg

Alex and his friend were sharing their opinions on whether we should support same-sex couples who want to adopt and raise children. His friend said he would rather his taxes go to build orphanages and prevent children from going to same-sex couples. Alex said he wasn't so sure.

But I thought Alex's letter was great, because it was totally benign and simply curious. He honestly was just wondering what people thought of the issue.

"I’m not sure the LDS Church has ever commented on this particular situation, although the proclamation to the world calls clearly for a mother and father in the home, if possible."


"Personally, I can’t say I’m opposed to a situation where a gay couple raises a child, but that could change if the Prophet marked it as a practice that should be avoided."

Certainly no rebellion or false doctrine. Alex was just being inquisitive.

Here's his letter:

Ways to raise

Of course, Alex's letter sparked a lot of responses. Of two that were published in the paper, one was supportive of same-sex couples adopting, one wasn't. But both of them were mostly thoughtful, and added to the conversation without resorting to insults or pettiness.

"Modern" immorality

Home-ophobia?

But then, a letter was published by someone named Taylor Petty (ironic enough). He sounded like someone who has never met a gay person in his life. He was very adamant, harsh, very zero-tolerance and downright heartless.

(I'll just interject myself here to remind all of you that just because a letter is published in the paper doesn't mean any of us in the newsroom or the university or the Church agree with it. And a letter is different from an article. An article would be the voice of the newspaper, a letter is the voice of some random guy.)

His letter is no longer available online, so I have to paraphrase, but the most striking point he made was something like "Would we let a baby be raised by a mother who was a prostitute or a father who was a serial killer?" (If you happen to have a Daily Universe paper from yesterday, you can find it there on page three.)

The letter was published in the paper and online, but was taken down last night. Here's the explanation by our managing editor Joel Campbell:

Letter removed

I thought Professor Campbell's statement was perfect and I totally agree with what he said. The letter did not reflect the opinion of The Daily Universe, BYU or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All three institutions (and myself) oppose same-sex marriage and oppose complete acceptance of homosexuality as merely an alternative lifestyle. At the same time, homosexual couples are not evil monsters. The Church has supported pretty much every right that homosexuals fight for except for marriage. (Here's an example.)

To anyone who cries censorship and says this is a violation of the First Amendment to take it down, I'll refer you to the U.S. Supreme Court case Miami Herald v. Tornillo. Basically, someone who writes a letter to the editor does have a right to speech, but a newspaper editor also has a right not to speak. If we don't want to publish something that's hateful and against the doctrine of our sponsoring organization (the Church), then we don't have to. (If you want to go somewhere that does publish things that might be newsworthy but against the doctrine of the Church, go here instead.)

The Daily Universe had a similar case last year, with a letter that I think was the opposite view of Taylor Petty's letter. I say "I think," because the letter was not clear whether it was rebelling against the Church and the prophet or wasn't. It was ambiguous to me, which is why I supported its removal last September.

Taylor Petty has every right to say what he wants to say. He even has the right to say that homosexuality is as bad as prostitution or murder. But he doesn't have the right to say so in The Daily Universe. If he demands his letter be republished or reposted online, or demands that other letters are taken down, then he is infringing on our First Amendment rights.

----------------------------------

For the record, I haven't totally decided my stance on this issue. But I lean toward what Alex and Katie Peacock said.

I remember one time having a conversation with a mission companion of mine while I was a missionary in Argentina. I don't remember how the subject came up, but we were talking about same-sex parents. I said this partly to annoy him, haha, but I also believed it, "I would rather live in a home with two dads or two moms who loved each other than a home with a mom and a dad who hated each other." I think same-sex parents are definitely better than abusive parents. And I think same-sex parents are better than no parents at all.

Any home without both a mother and a father is not what God would hope for His children. But, of course, many of us have been raised in other types of families, whether it was by a single parent, a grandparent, another relative, or two moms or two dads. I think someone raised in another type of family has just as much of an opportunity to be an upright citizen and a righteous child of God.

----------------------------------

And, by the way, I happen to love "Modern Family."

----------------------------------

UPDATE: This KTVX article gets some things wrong.

1) I don't know why this "Josh" kid thinks he would be expelled. I wonder where he got that idea.

2) The letter to the editor didn't actually criticize "Modern Family." Hey, ABC 4, if you want to actually do some research, read the original letter by clicking here. (Maybe you were thinking of this letter, but this isn't the one that started it all.)

The Athletic Career of Senator Arlen Specter

First, Republican Senator Arlen Specter fears losing votes from a state becoming more and more liberal, so he switches to the Democratic Party.

Then, leading up to this year's Democratic primary elections in Pennsylvania, Specter fears losing to Joe Sestak.

Finally, Specter loses. I guess his master plan backfired...

Oh, and I promised to identify the senators in last week's cartoon (for anyone who was wondering).


Magician with top hat and rabbit: Senator Harry Reid
Juggling clown: Senator Patrick Leahy
On the high wire: Senator Orrin Hatch

Who is Elena Kagan?

Today's J Squared column:

The honorable judge?

I did something a little bit different in this column. I presented a list of facts without passing any judgment or taking any side. Honestly, I don't want to rally around Elena Kagan simply because President Obama picked her. So I'm in the process of deciding one way or the other about Kagan, and I wrote my article that way. (I think I also wanted a break from argumentative responses to my articles.)

Here's a cartoon to go with it:


Can you guess who's in the circus? Kudos to anyone who can name the three Senators in the ring. (Hint: two are Democrats, and two are on the Senate Judiciary Committee.) If no one has any guesses (or if nobody reads my blog), I'll post the answers next week.

And, does Kagan remind you of anyone? Or is it just me?




















Doesn't Kagan look like the kid from Two and a Half Men?

My First Rant

My first column of the semester was meant to be an introduction of sorts. Today, the political commentary begins.

Another aspect of this Arizona immigration law is the question of whether or not Arizona is taking too much control over what is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I couldn't get it to fit in today's column for the paper, but I'll put a couple thoughts here:

"Tea partiers claim the government has trampled over their civil liberties one too many times and demand the federal government to take a step back. Are they hoping the vacancy left by the national government will then be consumed beyond capacity by the states? Do they want Arizona and other states to legally define the appearance of an American citizen or legal resident?"

Now, a paragraph with the opposite point of view (which I also agree with):

"Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said the states are the 'laboratories of democracy.' Innovative solutions to national problems can be tested and experimented with at the local level. Maybe the federal government should step aside and let Arizona try a few things and see what happens."

Oh, and I also drew a cartoon about this. I didn't put it in the paper because, well, even though it's a better-known issue than the Nevada Senate race, my cartoon with Sue Lowden and Senator Harry Reid at the doctor's office is funnier. But here's a little something for all you Arizona State fans: