"Jimmy Carter? He's history's greatest monster!"

I recently took this quiz which asks the reader to read a series of quotes and then guess whether they were spoken by Ann Coulter or Adolf Hitler. I don't really think it's fair to compare Coulter to Hilter - Hitler was way smarter.

I got most of them right, missing only three, not because I am familiar with the works of either author, but because Hitler's thoughts, although crazy, were better written and clearer. Don't get me wrong, Hitler was evil and wrong about quite nearly everything (you have to admit, the Blitzkrieg was effective), but Coulter can't put two coherent thoughts together to save her life. Due to this fact, I'm sure Coulter loves being grouped with Hitler - it's a step up for her!

"The internet told us what some nerd thinks about Star Trek."

At long last, I finally took a break from keeping track of my life in six-minute increments and saw me that new-fangled Star Treks movie. I really enjoyed it. I won't bother to rehash the ground already covered by the many other people who have no doubt written on why it is a great movie. Suffice it to say, I giggled like a little girl through the entire film.

Today, I was confronted many times by the question, "Did you like it better than Star Wars?" What a stupid question. Despite the fact that I have a firm answer, I find that kind of debate meaningless and detrimental. Is it not enough that we have two great movie franchises that we can enjoy? Why must we waste our time in deciding which of two great things is better? Does something have to be "better" or "the best" to be enjoyed? Absolutely not. I repeat, what a stupid question.*

I also think this is a stupid debate because there are 13 other Star Trek movies to compare it to, not to mention the 4 spin-off shows plus the original. If any debate could be had, it would be over which of the movies is the best, but that too, would be a meaningless exercise.

Rather, I am happy enough to say that I very much enjoyed the movie. Was it the best Star Trek movie ever made? I don't know, I've only seen it once. Even were I in a position to have that discussion, the bar has been set very high (Kahn, Undiscovered Country, First Contact).

And yes, I absolutely will see it again.

*Notice that rather than engage in a meaningful analysis of the issues, I resort to petty name-calling and attacking the debate itself. Yes, I am throwing away 15 years of advocacy training. Good times.

"Aliens, bio-duplication, nude conspiracies!...Lyndon LaRouche was right!"

I was recently informed that I am but a shill in a multi-national, multi-species plot to enslave the human race. The source of this life-changing revelation was radical free-thinker and likely Vulcan, David Icke:

I'm still not sure exactly what his theory is, but it scared me into adding another layer to my tin foil hat. As I understand it, federal, state and local governments have given themselves the power to incorporate, thereby sidestepping constitutional law and moving themselves into the realm of maritime and contract law. This allows them to contract directly with citizens in such a way that citizens surrender their natural rights in exchange for certain "privileges" such as driving, practicing in professional trades, etc. As insidious as this sounds, it's only the tip of the iceberg.

This side-stepping of our natural rights is actually part of a far-reaching scheme to enslave the human race. This world is an illusion and every level of government in every country on the Earth has been infiltrated by a reptilian alien race from the constellation Draco:

They have successfully cross-bred with humans and can now change between their human and reptilian forms. All of our leaders are either one of these hybrids or one of their servants. I'm not sure what the Prophet Icke thinks is the aliens' ultimate goal, but I'm sure it's unpleasant. Probably something to do with cattle mutilation or rectal probing. I urge you all to learn more by trying to decipher what he says on his official YouTube channel! Human race - get off your knees!

Looks like Alec Baldwin was right.

"Oh yeah? Well, screw you guys, I'm going home!"

For a long time now, I've been wrestling with my own views on legalizing gay marriage. I wasn't really interested in posting on it until today, when by chance, I came across a blog written by the author of some of my favorite books, Orson Scott Card. I wouldn't normally give two figs what an author thinks about something, but Card is also known as Brother Card, and I'm moderately interested in his non-fictional ideas. I enjoyed the books of his that I've read, and my own brother seems to enjoy most of his work, including his religious work.

Card's blog delves into a number of topics, and for the most part, was pretty good. He does stray where he spends one post making a sane point, and then in another post, goes on to betray his own argument by buying into this crap. This is a topic that deserves its own post, and may get one, if I can find a logical reason why people need to "apologize" for being a member of our religion". (It's also worth noting that I am professionally familiar with the apologist in question and find him to be an insufferable jerk.) In addition to addressing some fairly innocuous topics in interesting and thoughtful ways, he attempts to justify the LDS Church's support for Proposition 8 in California which monopolizes heterosexual marriage. He addresses these arguments in a series of posts throughout his blog.

Unfortunately, like the vast supermajority of opponents to gay marriage that I'm familiar with, Card falls short of providing a logical, secular reason why gay marriage should not be legally recognized. Card's argument seems to rest on two points: 1) gay marriage is only the result of activist judges and therefore signals the fall of democracy; and 2) gay marriage is contrary to God's law which is the same as natural law. He's only half right, but I don't think he knows it. Rather, I believe that the only argument we can make as opponents to gay marriage is religious.

Activist Judges

Card seems to think that there will be significant democratic and civic consequences to allowing judges to legalize gay marriage. I agree that there will be societal consequences, but so-called "activist" judges are part of the American system and have not yet led to its downfall. "Activist" is a term used by anyone (I'm not just looking at you, social conservatives) who doesn't like the outcome of a case. The same thing was said about New Deal judges, civil rights judges, and now "leftist" judges. It's a crap argument and I'm tired of hearing it. Gay marriage is not the source of "activist" judges, but rather, something ruled for by "activist" judges in at least a handful of states. If "activist" judges are leading to the downfall of democracy, it is not because they are supporting gay marriage, but rather because they are "activist". To say that gay marriage is causing the downfall of society because it's breeding "activist" judges is erroneous. And stupid.

Card's argument further fails because a number of states have enacted laws recognizing gay marriages, either by referendum or through their state legislatures, demonstrating that the "candid debate" has occurred (at least according to the metric he provided), and thus the democratic process has spoken. Indeed, there is nothing more democratic than that. Gay marriage is not destroying democracy, at least not in the way Card says it is.

Contrary to natural law

Card goes on in other posts to explain that homosexuality is contrary to God's law, and that God's laws are not arbitrary, but are based on natural law. I agree with him on this point. However, Card fails to explain why God's law justifies monopolizing recognition of heterosexual marriage. (This is his term and I like it. It's much more accurate than "banning gay marriage".)

Card seems to rest on the idea that marriage, or unions between two individuals, occur for the sole purpose of procreation. As I'm sure you've all heard argued before, if that's the case, then we shouldn't allow sterile people to marry. I don't buy this argument.

There is a difference between opposing gay marriage in principle and opposing its legalization. This is the same difference between an eternal marriage and a civil marriage. One has heavenly meaning, the other has legal meaning. This is a nuanced argument, but is central to the issue. I've yet to see a person make a rational, legal argument as to why we, as a society, should define marriage based on this natural law.

The argument made by most people is that heterosexual marriage leads to continuation of the species/society, and homosexual marriage doesn't. It is because of this continuation principle that we have created incentives to marry, such as successorship, tax breaks, ownership, etc. These incentives are counterproductive when sterile people marry because they cannot reproduce, yet we allow them to marry anyway. Furthermore, homosexuals can reproduce - just not biologically with each other. Card further argues that children that grow up in heterosexual homes are more likely to turn out heterosexual. He's right on this last point, but wrong on the rest of his position.

The problem with this position is that we do allow exceptions to the rule. If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then we should only incentivize relationships that lead to procreation. But we don't - we allow the sterile to marry. Because we don't, equal protection seems to demand that we allow the exceptions for everyone equally - including homosexuals who cannot procreate. Some people say that allowing the sterile to marry is an unfortunate or necessary byproduct of allowing marriage at all, but that's a crap argument as well because of the eternal purpose of marriage, as I explain below. (Card also makes a ridiculous argument that under our current system, homosexuals can seek a member of the opposite sex to enter into the contract with them, thereby gaining the benefits of the incentives. This argument not only ignores the fact that we don't require the sterile to jump through that hoop, but also the fact that the incentivization is usually tied to cohabitation.)**

The Religious Argument

All of the legitimate arguments against gay marriage can be justified by a religious understanding of the purpose of marriage. My understanding (red flag! red flag! warning: false doctrine ahead!) is that the point of marriage is to join two people together in an eternal relationship so they can become like God, thereby producing offspring in the same way God produced us. This post-resurrection procreation requires a man and a woman, and thus, we should unite with a member of the opposite sex as God has commanded so we can become like Him. If we unite with a member of the same sex, we cannot attain exaltation because we will not be like God, i.e. able to produce spiritual offspring. This is why we can allow people who are mortally sterile to marry; when they reach exaltation, they will be able to produce. (Boy, I sure hope I explained that clearly. If you didn't understand it or think I'm nuts, please see this link.) This is why a religious argument against gay marriage is consistent. On the other hand, according to this argument, we shouldn't recognize any marriages that are not eternal, but absent an established religious state, we're never going to get that.

Card also argues that allowing gay marriage necessarily requires that we start to teach that homosexual relationships are acceptable, thereby increasing the likelihood that someone who is teetering on the fence between homosexuality or heterosexuality would choose homosexuality because it is no longer disfavored (Card says that most homosexuals are actually bisexual). This is his strongest secular argument, but still ultimately fails. People are more likely to engage in a behavior because it is condoned or accepted by society - but only to an extent. There will always be people that ignore because they don't care about the punishment or consequences, or because they believe that the probability of the punishment multiplied by the severity of the punishment is less than the benefit of the illegal activity. This also doesn't address the underlying question of why the government has a legitimate interest in discouraging homosexuality. His argument assumes ab inicio that homosexuality is bad for society, which he hasn't proved. I contend that the only viable arguments to be made against homosexuality are religious and can only be justified through LDS doctrine.

After making all of these arguments, Card writes this post wherein he seems to back down from a number of these positions. He moves to the position that:

"We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a "marriage," are personally hurting anybody."

He further states:

"Only those who try to use the force of law to promote homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage to our children, and who would forbid us to publicly teach and express our belief that marriage is only meaningful between heterosexual couples, move into the category of enemies of freedom."

(For the record, it bugs the poop out of me when people say, "We" without authority. Since none of what he's saying is supported by official statements from those with authority, he should start saying, "I", or clarify that he's talking about himself and like-minded individuals.)

Based on his earlier argument, his first statement is incorrect. But he's definitely right about the second statement, because freedom to teach your children whatever crazy crap you want is a fundamental right. As long as we're letting people have kids without a license, parents can teach them whatever crazy nonsense comes into their heads. That's why we let parents home school their kids - because weirdos have the right to raise more weirdos.

Card finally says:

"We do not think that any belief system, whether it calls itself a religion or not, should be imposed on other people by law -- we won't impose ours on them, and we won't let them impose theirs on us or our families."

He's definitely wrong on this point. We impose our belief system every single day. We live in a society where we have adopted through common consent a belief system that is now codified and imposed on others by violence (i.e., police, jails, etc.). I think what he means to say is that we have adopted a belief system that allows people to believe and say whatever they want (with some exceptions), as long as they don't act contrary to the law. In that sense, the government is entirely within its right to recognize gay marriage and force others to recognize it as well (again, to the extent the government can).

The bottom line is that Card's "secular" arguments against gay marriage must fail, leaving only religious arguments. Because the Constitution protects the individual's right to practice his religion, we have to recognize all religions, even those whose teachings are exactly contrary to our own. This leads to an unfortunate paradox: if the only arguments we can make against gay marriage are religious, how can we justify imposing our religious beliefs on other people in a society that protects individual freedom of religion? We can amend the Constitution, but that appears to me to be imposing our religious beliefs on others, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

Now, having said all that, I tend to agree with his ultimate conclusion that gay marriages should not be recognized. But without the understanding of the eternal reasons for marriage, I don't see how we can legally justify denying it to everyone based on a secular argument. That's why I think we should stop trying to. Our reasons are religious and we should stand by that; diluting our religious argument with secular fallacies only serves to weaken the strength of our position. We might lose the religious argument, but at least we won't compromise the strength and logic of our position.

In spite of his failings, he makes a number of good points about the debate itself, the parties, and how we should treat homosexuals. I just wish he wouldn't muddle up the debate by making fallacious and misguided arguments, distracting people from the real reasons why we should oppose legalizing gay marriage.



**I'm intentionally ignoring the slippery slope argument because it is stupid, like your mom. And to his credit, Card doesn't make it.

*** The good Mr. Colbert delivered this timely piece.

"Because I called his pitbull a gaywad at 106th and Park."

Yesterday, opposing counsel accused me of acting unprofessionally. I responded by referring to him as a dickwad. That showed 'em.

(In my defense, they were acting like dicks.)

"If you get rich off of this stuff, take care of my family for me - I don't want my kids to have to go to college."

I really hate Glenn Beck. Due to his rampant popularity, I've read a number of his articles, listened to some of his show, and tried to learn a little about him. All I've found out is that he is an ignoramus who substitutes pandering for argument and ignores or shouts down opponents rather than engage in a lively debate. He's not Bill O'Reilly bad, but he's still quite unlikeable.

This week, he was in Utah to raise money for yet another tiny institution of higher learning/fascism indoctrination camp. While here, he was confronted by a reporter who asked him how he felt about Governor Jon Huntsman as a rising star in the Republican Party. Mr. Beck responded by briefly complimenting the Governor on a personal level, and then saying, "But if that's the future of the Republican Party, the Republican Party is over." He goes to explain that the Republican Party needs to be led by a person of conservative conviction who does not appeal to progressives and Democrats. Because if there's one thing the Republican Party needs, it's more polarizing like-it-or-lump-it leaders.

Mr. Beck, could not be more wrong. Right now, the Republican Party is facing serious fallout from eight years of the Rove "50% plus 1" doctrine. This is the idea that to win an election, you only need 50% of the vote plus 1, i.e. this guy:



Under this theory, a party can alienate and ignore moderates and appeal directly to a core constituency of hardcore followers. This doctrine led to the last eight years of "my way or the highway" policies, which American voters seemed to reject during the last election, favoring a Democratic Presidency and majorities in both the House and Senate. Beck seems to be holding on to the idea that this 50% plus 1 approach is the key to Republican survival.

Beck is wrong for a number of reasons. First, and foremost, American political parties are built on consensus, not on alienation. Successful parties choose platforms that encompass the broadest range of people possible, so as to increase the number of voters who feel like they identify with that party. As voters' opinions change and shift, as they always do, successful parties change and shift with them, constantly modifying their platform to encompass a wider cross-section of voters. Unsuccessful parties choose platforms that polarize people and force them to choose between joining the party or not. It is this strategy that led to the defeat of the Republicans in 2008. Because Huntsman falls into the former, "encompassing" group, a party that followed his philosophy would be more likely to be successful because it casts its net wider, bringing in a higher cross-section of voters. If the Republican Party rejects the more inclusive approach, it will die or be transformed into something else.

Second, the Republican Party cannot now afford to become more conservative the way I think Beck understands the word. Beck seems to espouse selective conservatism, i.e. opposing government interference in taxes, guns, etc., but espousing governmental control in areas such as marriage, religion (i.e. creating a de facto state-sponsored religion), speech (including indecent speech), etc. This type of neo-conservatism is what led to the last eight years of increasing governmental control and spending. If the Republican Party wants to survive, it needs to distance itself from the neocons, and adopt a more traditional, pre-Reagan type of conservatism. Otherwise, people are left with choosing between the progressive style of the Democrats or the Fascist style of the Republicans. I can guarantee that Americans will choose socialism over fascism any day.

I suspect that Beck is just doing what he does best: pandering to a small constituency of hardcore neocons who want to be told they they are right and that everyone else is out to get them. He arms them with the ideas and allies they feel like they need and then profits off his imagined war. He lies and distorts facts (to get the good stuff, skip to 3:05) to suit his own purposes. Unfortunately, by playing this game, he is reducing the political debate in this country into a no-compromise zero sum game - the type of atmosphere we had before the Civl War. No, what America really needs right now is people who seek to raise the level of thoughtful debate and who believe in an America that embodies the ideals and philosophies that have made America a world leader.

America also needs Glenn Beck to just shut the crap up.

Update 7-23-09: Yup, he's a nutcase.