LDS Church's WTF Response to Court's Prop 8 Ruling

This past week the LDS church issued this response to California's ruling on Prop 8:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today's decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition, especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject.

Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society. They expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society, as it has been for generations.

We recognize that this decision represents a continuation of what has been a vigorous public debate over the rights of the people to define and protect the fundamental institution of marriage. There is no doubt that today's ruling will intensify the debate in this country. We urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion.

Boy is that a disappointing response. Setting aside the fact that many people consider the Prop 8 election to have been bought by special interest groups — like the church — this statement contants a blatant falsehood:

We have always had that view.

What? Actually the church has never held that view.

The church historically practiced polygamy and continues to include polygamy as a part of its doctrine. (I know many LDS men who are "sealed" — or religiously married — to multiple women who have either died or divorced them, meaning they believe that after they die they will have multiple wives.)

We can quibble over whether the word "recognize" makes the statement technically true about the church's current stance — I can already anticipate someone pointing out that the church doesn't currently ask the government to "recognize" polygamous temple marriages — but in the past the church absolutely wanted to have open, real-world polygamous marriages that were recognized. So from a historical perspective this statement is nothing short of a lie.

And I'd disagree with the counter argument over the word "recognize" and say it's pretty close to a lie about the church's current postion; after all the church itself "recognizes" polygamous marriages, even if the government doesn't.

I'm all for rigorous debate on this topic. I understand and respect the fact that many gay marriage proponents and Mormons (and people who are both, such as myself) have varying views on this topic.

But I'm nothing short of appalled when an official statement includes something that is so obviously misleading.

Milestone

Today my other blog on Provo, (pro(vo)cation) passed 2,000 views. The growth of the blog seems to be accelerating as well, meaning that generally each week is better than the last. Friday, for example, I had 91 hits. There were weeks back in November and December, shortly after I started the blog, that didn't do that well in seven days (which is too bad since I wrote some of my favorite posts at that time).

Anyway, Provo is really doing great so either check out my blog or another blog/website to find out more. Or, even better, just visit.

Playing

Why don't adults "play"? I know some adults talk about "playing," but it usually seems to mean going out to eat, to a bar or some other appropriate "adult" activity. I want to know why adults can't get together with their friends, pick up a few sticks in the backyard, and have a huge sword fight. Why isn't it socially acceptable for adults to run around the neighborhood, pretending to be on a quest? These are things I think more adults would be interested in doing than we might realize.

Regret

One of my life's regrets is that I never allowed myself to fall in love as a teenager.

Writing

Each time I write a new post on my other Provo blog, (pro(vo)cation), Wordpress updates me on how I'm doing with my blogging "goals." That's funny, because I have no specific blogging goals and indeed don't really like the whole concept of goals in general. Today, for example, I was informed that I just met my goal of 105 posts. Huzzah... I guess.

Anyway, one thing I actually enjoy about these computer generated goals is that they also come with quotes about writing from famous writers. Here was today's:

The art of writing is the art of discovering what you believe — Gustave Flaubert

While I know this quote was made specifically for me to the same extent that a fortune cookie fortune is made for me (so not at all), it is nevertheless serendipitous because that is how I feel. When I started blogging years ago I had a series of objectives (not goals!) some of which were met and others which weren't. In the time since, however, I've continued to blog even as my objectives, interests and circumstances have changed.

The point I think is the one that Flaubert makes: that writing itself is the point.

New Girl

I'm really enjoying New Girl, the Fox sitcom starring Zooey Deschanel. But one really bizarre thing about the show is how they're revealing more and more about the setting.

Maybe I missed something, but when the show began I would have bet money it was set in New York. However, as far as I could tell (and I watched several episodes twice), they never explicitly said where the show was taking place.

Then, bam! Like a punch to the face, several episodes in the show gave us an establishing shot of LA. It was startling. And fascinating. Since then, I'd argue that the show has gradually asserted a stronger sense of place — scenes in the mall, at a very California-esque party.

Anyway, I think this method of revealing the setting (or perhaps choosing the setting) is both interesting and odd.

A few new things

I have a few new things to say today. First, have you checked out my other blog about Provo? I would truly love it if you did, and I post new stuff a lot.

Next, Melancholia was a really great film.

And finally, two annoyances: first, I have come to hate plot synopsis in movie reviews. Tell me if it's worth seeing. Raise some interesting questions. Point out the allusions and references. But don't waste my time on a plot that I'll either learn about soon enough, or won't ever care about.

Also, I was saddened today to learn that they are making an Indiana Jones 5. The first and third of those movies are fun, but the fourth was one of the most painful cinema experiences I can remember. Truly horrible. I guess the 5th movie literally can't be any worse, but still.