I have been pretty quiet on my blog for over a month, yet it's been during a time that amazing things have been happening in Utah. With gay marriage currently a reality here, we have also experienced a push  back from a lot of people. The Deseret News, for example, has been full of opinion pieces about Judicial tyranny, freedom of speech, and political correctness.

I let myself get a little bit too involved in the readers' comments sections of the newspapers, but I feel more compelled than ever to speak up for what I believe to be right. Here is a response to comments on the forums:


In one article from the Deseret News' editorial board, the writers claimed the following: "Utah has not changed its definition of marriage. A single federal judge has used a novel interpretation of the Constitution to prevent enforcement of that widely used definition."

My response:

Actually, Utah voters changed the definition of marriage during the 2004 election; as it turns that law that narrowly defines marriage is in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

What concerns me most about this editorial and other articles is the dishonesty presented in the arguments. Surely the board is better informed of the functions of the three branches of government. Deep down, the editorial board knows that it is the duty of the judge to determine whether or laws passed by legislators or a popular vote are fair and don't violate one's Constitutional rights. You are not telling the truth when you call Judge Shelby and "activist judge" who "overreached his authority."

Stick to your religious convictions; fight for your religious freedom; but don't continue with these dishonest editorials. I expect more from a newspaper owned by a church that claims to be above this.

Of course, Facebook and Twitter has been full of posts about this topic, and I wanted to share some snippets from some other blogs that were shared over the past week.

Rachel Held Evans wrote some compelling words in her blog, and I thought the following hit the target:

"In short, we like to gang up.  We like to fashion weapons out of the verses that affect us the least and then “clobber” the minority with them. Or better yet, conjure up some saccharine language about speaking the truth in love before breaking out our spec-removing tweezers to help get our minds off of these uncomfortable logs in our own eyes.

"We see this in the story of the religious leaders who ganged up on the woman caught in adultery. She was such an easy target: a woman, probably poor, disempowered, and charged with the go-to favorite of the self-righteous—sexual sin.   When they brought her to Jesus, they were using her as an example to test him, to see how “biblical” his response to her would be. (See Deuteronomy 22:23-14.)  Jesus knelt down and scribbled in the sand before saying, “He who is without sin can cast the first stone.” They dropped their stones."

Micah J. Murray wrote a blog post last June that has been passed around several times this past week. Here's some things he had to say about the oft-used phrase "love the sinner, but hate the sin":


"It’s a special sort of condescending love we’ve reserved for the gay community. We’ll agree to love them, accept them, welcome them – but we reserve the right to see them as different. We reserve the right to say “them” instead of “us”. We embrace them with arms full of disclaimers about how all the sinners are welcome here. And yet, they’re the only ones we constantly remind of their status as sinners, welcome sinners.

"In all this, we turn our backs on all the gay brothers and sisters already in our church, already saved, already following Jesus. Our us vs. them narrative leaves little space for those who didn’t choose to be gay but did choose to follow Jesus. Using “gay” and “sinner” interchangeably, we force them away from the Table and into the shadows."

I continue to ponder why we let what others say about us have so much power. Why do we struggle so much to be accepted? I believe it is because we are not meant to be alone. After all, it was mentioned in the creation that "it is not good that man be alone." Unfortunately, we often use words to isolate people. We say things to condemn the sins of others instead of quietly living life with the intention of eliminating our own sins; we have mistakenly learned that the easiest path to self improvement is by condemning others.

The good news is I am seeing a major shift in attitudes. While I believe there will be a tremendous amount of backlash towards the gay community in Utah for a next several months, I believe we will also witness more allies coming forward and speaking up for us. I have hope for seeing a massive outpouring of love that will spread out and change this state in country for the better.

I have been thinking of some of the divisive issues that I read and hear about on a daily basis. While there are numerous reasons they are so divisive, I noticed something that they all have in common. Each one of the issues I have listed below have terms or labels that distract the audience from the real issue. These labels all have negative connotations that stop the dialogue that I believe is necessary to bring both sides—and those in the middle—together and work out rational solutions.


Obamacare – The law is called the Affordable Care Act; why do people insist on calling it Obamacare?

Let's face it, those who are calling it Obamacare want the massive healthcare overhaul to fail. The only way to make sure that it does is to make it unappealing to the masses. If, in the majority of people's minds it remains known as the Affordable Care Act, it likely would be more successful than it currently is.

By calling it Obamacare, we distract a large portion of people what the real intent of this program is—to provide all citizens with affordable healthcare options—and remind them that this is one of President Obama's programs. I have to wonder how many people have resisted enrolling simply because of the nickname.

We are an extremely divided country politically right now. Nobody would be willing to admit they are against more affordable healthcare. Many of those same people, however, are against anything Obama or his political allies implement. By continually identifying the Affordable Care Act as Obamacare, we are ensuring that it will be a failure. The conservatives in congress will never be willing to compromise and work out the problems of a program that so prominently has Obama's name on it.

Gay Marriage – We would rather not call it marriage equality, which it really is, because we don't want people to know we are against equality. By calling it gay marriage, people believe that a new form of marriage is being created. We call it gay marriage because it sounds like we are granting a small segment of the population some special rights.

Special Rights – The Employment Non-discrimination Act of 2013 will extend employment and housing protections already in place for many Americans to gay, lesbian, and transgender citizens. This is an issue of equality and is not granting anyone special rights or privileges. We have had a difficult time passing non-discrimination laws in this country because (1) people who don't need these protections don't see a problem, (2) people of privilege often don't want to share that privilege with others, and (3) too many of us believe that non-discrimination laws grant small groups special rights.

When the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, the authors mentioned that we all have “certain unalienable Rights” including “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Not only that, but it's the role of government to ensure that all citizens have an equal opportunity to enjoy those rights. Unfortunately, it has taken us 237 years to get to this point, yet we are still arguing over whether everyone should be protected from employment and housing discrimination.

If ENDA 2013 passes, it will not mean that gay and lesbian men and women will be given preferential treatment in employment and housing over their straight counterparts, it will just mean that their sexual orientation cannot be the determining factor. Our straight neighbors who are opposed to this law will also be protected because—guess what—they also have a sexual orientation. So, if you fear this law, it will also protect you from being fired or evicted just because you are straight. You will have to just screw up in some way for that to happen.

Feminism/Feminist – a feminist is someone who believes in equality for men and women. The two words, however have become twisted enough to make people believe that anyone involved in this equality movement are extreme, militaristic, men-hating women. Televangelist Pat Robertson, in 1992, announced that feminists are “about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." Rush Limbaugh created more rancor towards feminists when he labeled them “feminazis.”

When you equate people who are fighting for equality to these extremes, you eliminate the possibility of any sort of intelligent discussion of the real issues.

I will also argue that the terms feminist and feminism also unintentionally keep most men from joining the fight. Men, after all, are supposed to be masculine; we don't dare associate ourselves with anything feminine. That, after all, would make us gay, and we all know how inflammatory that label is for us. The terms take men out of the issue, which is unfortunate, because we are the main cause of the gender equality problems.

Religious Freedom – Also called Religious Liberty, this is the newest attempt to draw good people away from the current equality movements. Because gays, lesbians, transgendered people, women, and other minority citizens are working endlessly for equality, opponents are now claiming that non-discrimination laws are at odds with their religious freedom. Business owners cry discrimination when they can no longer deny services to gay or lesbian couples planning weddings due to their moral objections. Churches are rallying their followers and making them believe they are being persecuted for standing up for their beliefs.

The reality, as more states are granting equal rights to citizens, it will become harder to use our religious convictions as an excuse to deny business services to people because we are morally opposed to their lifestyle. It's sometimes hard to admit that we have to be forced by our government to treat everyone with an equal amount of dignity; it's not our place to determine who deserves our services and who doesn't.

True religion, in my opinion, teaches believers to treat everyone with love and dignity. Denying somebody a job or services because of your religious convictions is not what Christ would have us do. We are free to associate with whomever we wish in our free and worship time, but we should not deny anyone their unalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Let's rise above the pettiness.