The Stewart Response to the SOTU

SoTUnight is a special one in our house; we gather together around the softly glowing sony to remember and reflect on the past year. We munch sugared partisansnaps and sip warm skepticnog (Papa's glass always spiked with a little cinna-cism); we snuggle, warm against the winter chill, and, rapt, listen.

Usually the holiday ends with the opposition's response. This year, though, we didn't take down the decorations —the bumperstickers and partyposters, lapelpins and snide status updates— 'til old Snarky Jon made his day-after visit.

So from our family to yours, a Post-SoTU Day greeting.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Speech Therapy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Effin' A.

IOWA!!

And Vermont!

We Are One (or, Pinch Me: Is the Bush Era Really Over?)

Here are a few videos from the pre-Inaugural "We Are One" concert we attended in D.C. on Sunday, 18 January. Note: I am a terrible videographer.

We started out under the Washington Monument. With us are our effin' awesome friends, the Dorii.


We were able to get a bit closer to the action on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, but not close enough to distinguish anything but brightly colored choir robes later in the concert. We were about exactly halfway between the Washington Monument and the Pacific Theater side of the relatively new WWII monument. Between us and the Lincoln Memorial was a solid crush of people. This video will give you a sense of the mass of humanity in attendance.


Though there were upwards of a million and a half people present, I didn't witness any meanness (with the exception of a couple of understandable grumbles from the people forced to stand behind me). Everybody seemed on their best behavior, and I heard many a gracious and polite word.


The man of the hour:


A little afterglow song — Pete Seeger!:


And finally, a glowing review!

Pierglass Candleflame

Since I posted my reaction to Prop 8's passing in California, I've been the recipient of a number of caring phone calls, letters, lunches, and (vicariously) midnight resistance meetings. Thank you, all (you know who you are). I'm leaving comments disabled on this post, too, for the same reasons as on the last one: they're what I have to say. If you feel similarly or differently, you have your own blogs!

Though I still get angry, sad, and frustrated about this issue, I've learned a couple of things:

1) I'm by no means alone, even among LDS (Mormon) communities, in feeling the way I do. My anger, sadness, frustration and sense of urgency on this matter is shared by far many more than I would have guessed a few weeks ago.

2) This issue matters, and it isn't going away, and if history is at all relevant, eventually the people, then the government (and finally even the Church) will come around. My daughter evinces this already. As wiser minds have pointed out: there's almost nothing that the LDS church isn't willing to change its position on, given enough time and enough grassroots social pressure.

3) My wife and I have decided (her idea, actually) that in order to remain members of the church and maintain some semblance of integrity we will need to be open and honest about our feelings on this issue; therefore we're meeting with our bishop to let him know how we feel. (This in keeping with MLK, Jr's 4-fold Guide to Nonviolent Protest, step 4: direct action. I'm still working on step 3.)

Thank you; that is all.

Dark

I have a post coming about President-Elect Obama's victory speech last night at Grant Park. Like Annie writes: chills. (The good kind!)

And despite how elated and hopeful I am that the next four years will see this country's name more accurately describe our nation, I find myself in the grips of a profound, dark sadness.

52.5 percent of California voters cast their ballots in approval of Proposition 8, which amended the state's constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

My depression stems only in part from the evidence that slightly more than half of voters in the Golden State feel their way of life and love threatened by others' love. That sadness is largely assuaged by two factors: 1) this division in our culture will most likely not outlast my daughter's generation; and 2) though marginalized in conceit, all California couples are legally entitled to civil privileges and protections. (#2 is tempered by the fact that I agree with the Connecticut Supreme Court that separate is not equal, and will continue to do whatever I can to support the eradication of discriminatory laws and practices.)

What really gets me is the position of my church on this issue. What's more, the fact that had my church not thrown its support so zealously behind this proposition, the ballot measure would almost certainly have failed.

As a like-minded friend of mine writes,

I continue to read the reactions of gay and lesbian Californians that feel hurt and betrayed and frustrated. They have partners that they love. Many of them have children that they love. [Just over half of] Californians yesterday decided that those families don't matter and that those marriages are second-class. I think many Californians that voted yes on Prop 8 truly don't realize the pain they're causing. I think many feel torn and conflicted, and voted yes out of deeply held religious beliefs. I can respect that even though I disagree.

I've read of families who have donated their life savings, their kids' college funds, way more than they can afford, to support this amendment. Though I don't know if this list of donors is complete, I don't find any of the First Presidency or Quorum of Twelve on it (unless the entry for one "THOMAS S. M" from Concord, CA, is who I suspect it's not).

The LDS Church has a wonderful opportunity to be ahead (or at least abreast) of history here. It has a wonderful opportunity to champion love, tolerance, families, and community. It has a wonderful opportunity to speak to a new generation, many of whom will reject out of hand the idea that a person's sexual orientation defines their worth as a human being, as a husband or wife, as a parent, as a citizen, or as a servant of God.

Try as I might, I cannot reconcile the Christ I witness with the Church's behavior in this matter. I am left wondering what I have to give to the Church, and what it has to offer me.

Perhaps I've let go the iron rod and wandered off into paths unknown. Perhaps the jeers from the great and spacious building have made me ashamed. Perhaps I have stoned the prophets and esteemed the word of the Lord for dross. Quite probably the despair I'm feeling is evidence that I'm on the wrong path, divorced from the Spirit of truth.

I don't know. I just hurt, and I'm angry. For me. For my church. For my family, in the largest, most encompassing sense of the word.

McCain Concedes, Honorably.

I really enjoyed Senator McCain's concession speech tonight. Not just because it was a concession, but because he evidences the sort of commitment we all — including supporters of President-Elect Obama — need to rebuild our nation.

BOO YA, PA!!

Looks like PA (my state) is going blue this year. Love it! Check out this post, though. It's excellence.

For Single Issue Voters: Abortion

From tonight's third debate between Senators McCain and Obama.

After being accused by Sen. McCain of voting against a bill that would ban partial-birth abortions, Sen. Obama responded (in part; see the entire transcript here; emphasis mine):

OBAMA: With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health ...

And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that's why I voted present, because I'm willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.

The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views.

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation.

We should try to reduce these circumstances.

I think you could read the above over the pulpit in an LDS meetinghouse without ruffling any but the most ardent feathers. It's certainly in line with the LDS Church's official policy on abortion, which explicitly affords a woman the choice to abort (in, as Obama says, consultation with her doctor and family) in cases where her health is threatened.

Note also that Obama believes that sex is sacred, and not to be indulged in carelessly. He also works for the support of single mothers to increase their ability to keep the child.

I've known that Obama feels this way for a long time. I myself have felt this way for a long time. What McCain said, though, really made my jaw drop.

SCHIEFFER: Let's give Senator McCain a short response...

MCCAIN: Just again...

SCHIEFFER: ... and then...

MCCAIN: Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He's health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything.

That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health." But, look, Cindy and I are adoptive parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives. We'll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country.

You can't see it in the transcript, but if you saw or listened to the debate, you'll have noticed the verbal scare quotes McCain put around the words "women's health."

Let me say that again. He put scare quotes around the words "women's health."

Whoa.

I hope that I can finally stop hearing about how being both a Democrat and a good Mormon is impossible. As far as I can tell, Obama's abortion policy is more in line with my church's than McCain's, which would prohibit a woman from choosing to obtain a legal abortion even if the birth would likely kill her.

Wait: whose policies best support families?

(Also, McCain opposes keeps railing against eloquence. He's criticized Obama thrice for it. Say what? Since when has the ability to speak well been a liability or something to be criticized in an executive? I know we're all used to it by now, but remember when our presidents weren't laughingstocks around the world, those halcyon days when they could speak English?!?)

If you think Bush talks good...

From Fareed Zakaria's Newsweek column this week (27 Sept 2008):

"Couric asked her a smart question about the proposed $700 billion bailout of the American financial sector. It was designed to see if Palin understood that the problem in this crisis is that credit and liquidity in the financial system has dried up, and that that's why, in the estimation of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, the government needs to step in to buy up Wall Street's most toxic liabilities. Here's the entire exchange:

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

Are you kidding me?!?

One of my best friends is prepared for the way public dialogue seems to be headed. Here's the first paragraph of his revised cover letter:

I now on write in Palin style exchanges to do my communications to the utmost degree with the integrity of the nation on the line I fight for the little person who needs health care and free trade and debt relief because mortgage crisis is bailout city for people who just want to keep their jobs and there's Putin giving head to Alaskans all over the place and Canadia next door that is the key issue of all these affairs and with the right kind of change we can steer this ship straight to the destination point of the port of call.

Thank you and good night.

NVVs Unite!

So I know I should post something original, but I'm writing a talk for tomorrow and the cognitive dissonance is too much. As Doc Holladay once said (in a movie where he was played by Val Kilmer): my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Warning: The following is rated R for Politics-related Profanity

Thanks to DT, my favorite civil servant, for sending this to me. (He also sent the Onion video I posted just below.)

I Heart Samantha Bee

I think Mom would have laughed.

Name that War

My favorite bit of unintentional irony from Sen. McCain's speech tonight:

[A]’s leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of responsible power. They invaded a small [B] neighbor to gain more control over the world’s oil supply, intimidate other neighbors, and further their ambitions of reassembling the [C] empire. And the brave people of [D] need our solidarity and our prayers.

We can’t turn a blind eye to agression and international lawlessness that threatens the peace and stability of the world and the security of the American people.

Which conflict is he talking about?

McCain's answers: [A] = Russia; [B] = democratic; [C] = Russian; [D] = Georgia.
Recent U.S. history: [A] = The United States; [B] = sovereign; [C] = U.S. American; [D] = Iraq.

Does "Less Blessed" = "Less Fortunate"?

During his speech tonight at the RNC, Senator McCain said that his wife Cindy's "concern for those less blessed than we are ... show [sic] the measure of her humanity."

This reminds me of a phrase I often hear at church and in prayers: the wish that God bless those "less fortunate" than the speaker.

Are these two expressions equal? Are people less fortunate because they are less blessed? Are people less blessed because they're less fortunate?

This is an idea that goes way, way back in U.S. philosophy. In fact, it predates the U.S.A. In a famous sermon given on board the Arbella in 1630 by the British immigrant and Massachusetts Bay Company Governor John Winthrop, the Puritan leader argued essentially that God made some rich and others poor "for the glory of [their] Creator and the common good of the creature, man." It was important that both rich and poor existed, so that "so that the rich and mighty should not eat up the poor, nor the poor and despised rise up against and shake off their yoke."

That is, poor people exist so that rich people can learn to be charitable. Rich people exist to govern the poor people. This causal link between material prosperity and God's favor is, it seems to me, a shaky proposition theologically, but it fits well into the idea of the (U.S.) American Dream and the concept of (U.S.) American exceptionalism.

By Winthrop's logic, and, it seems, Senator McCain's estimation, those who are materially prosperous are so because they are more blessed by God. By the same logic, then, those who suffer more of the many indignities of human life are less blessed.

I reject this equation of wealth and prosperity to blessing. We may receive whatever we have because God loves us. But what we have is not and should never be seen as an indication of God's favor. Such is a perversion of our relationship with our Heavenly Parents, a mean quantification of inscrutable providence and invaluable charity.

Hi, I'm Mitt Romney, and I'm a Massive Tool

Someone needs to let Brother Romney know that he's a month early for Conference. This is a pretty good summary of his speech at the RNC tonight.

Hot DAMN!!

Incredible speech. Inspiring, intelligent, unsparing of friend or foe.

If our next president needs any quality, it's that of eloquence. I know we in the US tend to denigrate the importance and power of what some term "pretty words." Many argue that our current president succeeded largely on the strength of that seemingly inherent distrust of rhetoric, of powerful words persuasively spoken. And his predecessor was excoriated for his gift with language—labeled "slick" for his ability to rouse emotion and inspire.

But the relationship of language to power goes back as far as words themselves. And so it is right and good that the man who would lead our country to back to hope be as gifted a rhetor as Barack Obama.

In almost every ancient creation myth (including our own), language is involved in calling order out of darkness, chaos or violence. Many of humankind's earliest heroes and leaders either spoke well themselves or with the divine voice of their god.

A president should be intelligent, thoughtful, rational, compassionate, and realistic. But he or she should be able to inspire us. To persuade us and those who oppose or disagree with us. It's been a long time.

I don't know what will happen in eight weeks. But today, as my sister just wrote me, is a beautiful day.

Revelation, obedience, conscience

Or, in other words: gay marriage.

I'm not trying to poke the bear, as it were. I just want to get this out there, and y'all can discuss or not. However you come down on this issue, please know that I harbor no hard feelings, nor do I think you're cooler if you agree with me. (I'm the kind that doesn't really want to belong to any club that would have me...)

You may have heard (I don't know, maybe I'm the only one) that the family is under threat. You may also have heard (again, maybe it's just me) that the Number One Threat to the Family in this day and age is the civil redefinition of marriage to include all adult couples, rather than just the traditional heterosexual unions we're used to.

This redefinition, according to some, poses a grave challenge to "traditional marriage" — the civil and religious union of a man and a woman. The supposed consequences are no less than the degradation of the "traditional family" and eventually the downfall of society as we know it.

I've had a lot of discussions with a lot of friends who fall on both sides of this issue, and I feel like I've heard most of the arguments for both sides. (I'd love to hear if I've missed any compelling argument pro or con, though.)

Here's what I currently think: marriage between two caring, consenting, committed adults is a good almost without equal, no matter the gender or sex of the partners.

My position is based on the following assumptions:

1. The family is the basic unit of our society. When it works, it's great. Really, really great. For a lot of very compelling reasons (intimacy, monogamy, stability both emotional and financial, and on an on). More families = stronger, more vibrant society.
   
2. Monogamous sex in a caring, consentual, committed adult relationship is a really, really good thing — regardless of the gender or sex of either adult. That is, there is nothing that makes heterosexual sex more or less moral than homosexual sex, or vice versa.
   
3. There is no accepted evidence that same-sex couples do any worse at raising children well than do mixed-sex couples. Until such evidence is produced, there seems no compelling reason to assume that a same-sex couple would be less capable parents than a mixed-sex couple.
4. There is accepted evidence that traditional, heteronormative marriages are in more trouble today than they have been in the past. There are many reasons for this — none of which is the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage. Debt due to consumerism and infidelity top the list. Gay marriage isn't even on it.
   
5. There is more evidence every day — even from the LDS Church leadership! — that sexual orientation is innate and not a deliberate (and rebellious or sinful) choice, as it has been presented in the past. In fact, LDS leaders have stated unequivocally that sexual attraction (hetero- or homosexual) is not inherently sinful.
   

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect my marriage in any way that I or my wife or our daughter can perceive. Had it been an option when I was single, it would not have affected my decision to marry my wife, nor has it been a consideration in our decisions about when and how many children to try for. I wonder for how many members of the church it has been.

I just fundamentally do not get why same-sex marriage is a bad thing — except that my church tells me so. And apparently (at least according to whomever is writing the Daily Universe editorials these days) "'active Mormons' know that when the prophet speaks, the debate is over."*

Which brings me to the title and real question of this post: what to do when the same mechanisms by which I trust in the soteriology of LDS Christianity lead me to a conviction that is at odds with official statements from Salt Lake?

As a missionary, I got a lot of mileage out of a rhetorical fallacy that hinged upon the promise of personal revelation from God in Moroni 10:3-5. I assured people that they could know the truth of all things (but especially the Book of Mormon's authenticity) if they would pray with real intent. Then, I argued, if God confirmed to them that the Book of Mormon was true, they would ("logically") have to accept that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and therefore that everything else he said must be true, too.

Of course it doesn't work that way. I love the Prophet Joseph, and revere him as a holy man who spoke, when moved upon by the spirit, for God. I value the scripture we have because of him, and the religious heritage he bequeathed us. But he was wrong about a lot of things. And, to his credit, he often acknowledged his shortcomings and failures — another of his qualities I admire.

What do I do, then, when I apply Moroni's promise to the "problem" of same-sex marriage? When I ask in faith, with real intent, whether it's immoral and dangerous and wrong, and get a no as definite and unequivocal as the yes I get when I ask whether Joseph was a prophet and whether I should remain a member of the church he founded? I can tell no difference in the mechanism or the means of the process. And so I find myself compelled by the same faith I hold in Joseph's message to believe also that monogamous sexuality is good when attended by the bonds of marriage committment.


*Never mind that no prophet, seer or revelator (latter-day or ancient) has ever uttered this statement. Closest these days is Elder Oaks, with his dictum that one should never criticize the prophet, even if he is wrong.

Why I'm Celebrating with (Some of) California

I'm sure you've heard that the California State Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the state ban on same-sex marriage, and that couples have been crowding into courthouses to pledge themselves to one another.

Kitti and I are about to celebrate our tenth anniversary. (I know that's peanuts for some of you; for others it may seem like a day far off in the mists of thirtysomethinghood.)

I'm grateful today that in at least two states in this union, every pair of consenting adults who so desire can honor their relationship — and have it officially honored in return by the state — just as Kitti and I have been blessed to for the past decade.

There is nothing greater, more wonderful or sustaining in my life than the marriage I share with my wife. Through it I have learned — more than I might ever have done alone — of friendship, comfort, love and the pure charity of Christ. The Atonement is real to me because of my relationship with Kitti: there is no one who knows me as intimately as she, no one who has greater standing to justly judge me, no one who has forgiven me more thoroughly my trespasses.

For me to support denying a brother or sister the exquisite joy of knowing salvation in this life, of tasting forgiveness and hope and unconditional love — simply because they feel attracted to someone I don't — for me, would be unconscionable. It would be to deny everything I know that is praiseworthy and of good report in the world; to cast stones pretending sinlessness.

As I celebrate my marriage, I celebrate, too, the union of all those couples who commit to comfort, mourn, love and marry.

ADDENDUM: I strongly recommend listening to this podcast; it treats this issue from a perspective I don't very often see.