Brig's Blog

Monday, April 28, 2014

Utah wants its Own Court to Decide Fate of Utah's Same-Sex Marriages

by Brig Bagley

28 April 2014

Since Utah officials can guess that the Federal Courts will not rule in their favor, they want to appeal to their own Supreme Court to tell them what they want to hear. Utah's Supreme Court is under the same LDS/conservative influence as Utah's AG and Governor, for which they hope would uphold the ban on same-sex marriages.

This "ask daddy because mommy said 'no' " move is just as childish as the AG's plan to revoke adoptions to same-sex parents. "We're going to get what we want, no matter what it takes. And if we can't, we'll take everything we can from you." This is the attitude that comes off from Utah officials that wish to rule over the land with their religious convictions at the helm. Acceptance of gay relationships has sky-rocketed, thanks to Mormon's illegal involvement with California's Prop. 8 in 2008. Even in Utah, every poll has shown greater approval of LGBT equality this year from 2004, even if not a majority. Give it a few years and it will be the majority by far.

The AG doesn't care what Utah thinks now--he claims he's only defending Utah's decision 10 years ago because it's his job. But that doesn't excuse him from ignoring more recent polls, the direction of the nation, and his inexplicable adherence to religion over politics.

The KSL comments say things like "make marriage for religion only, and call everything else civil-union", "the voice of one incompetent judge overruling the voice of the people is wrong", and "the courts are tainted with agenda driven politics." Why can't religions make the move to call their special, holy, ritual unions something else--like "sealing" or something--oh wait, they already do! Let religions like Mormons run with their sealing as they please, denying as they please. Marriage is already a secular institution. That cannot be undone.

The purpose of a small panel of judges reviewing law was set in place exactly for the reason of banishing laws that the majority puts in place to deny rights and opportunities for minorities. One judge can overrule majority law, and should, if the majority seeks to single out a minority and deny it equal rights. Judge Shelby wasn't incompetent, he was genius and daring. He knew his career would be put on the line for doing the right thing, even if many or most people disagreed. He will likely become iconic because of his defiance against the majority opinion.

The courts aren't driven to hear any case except by the appeal of real citizens. A gay, a Mormon, a Jew, an Atheist--no matter who a person is, he/she is in the right to appeal a court when he/she believes the law was not metered correctly, or if the law is thought to be unfair. The judge's duty is to hear the case, review the law, and provide a ruling. The ruling then becomes new law. Doing his job is not part of the "gay agenda". But letting a religion govern the state is most definitely the "Mormon agenda". Why can't the LGBT citizens use the system set in place over a century ago to fight the oppressive, religious majority in Utah? Utahns can still live the Mormon life they desire, unaffected by new laws such as legal same-sex marriage. Gay families will still occur with or without Mormon approval. Do the right thing and give them the rights to have a legally protected family, just like theirs is.

If Utah uses the Utah Supreme Court to contradict the Federal Courts' rulings, there will be even more of the confusion and "strife" they say was introduced by Shelby's ruling in December. It will also be a huge blow to so many families in the state. Utah would make itself the most devious and stubborn government, at odds with the rest of the US.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Motherism: The Missing Side

by Brig Bagley

25 April 2014

A recent article explains a new term for discrimination against stay-at-home mothers. The primary source of discrimination is from working mothers. The premise is that mothers who stay at home, with children or not, are wasting their time and potential by not completing an education or moving on with a career.

There are a few points to make on the subject. The first is that it is most certainly important that a parent be home for children as much as possible. Some circumstances do not permit that, but the more time a child has with a parent, the more stable the relationships in the family will be. Whether a nanny needs to be hired for the day, or a previously stay-at-home parent picks up work once all the kids are in school, there are ways for it to work.

The next point is that the article focuses on women and completely brushes over men. True, traditionally men are the workers and not the "mothers", but it is widely acceptable for a father to stay home instead. Are they also victims of motherism? Have they wasted their potential? The comments of the article (very Mormon indeed) often repeat the "important and sacred role" of mothers. It is important to raise children and spend time with them, but that is not gender specific. Mothers are not more capable to raise children inherently than men. Although men cannot nurse, they can bottle, hold, rock, clean, change diapers, sing, clean, or cook like any other. Gay couple or not, a man is just as worthy to stay at home as a woman for the children.

Are stay-at-home parents really wasting their potential? Maybe. If they pick up raising children full-time before completing a college degree, it's likely they won't ever complete it. Every person should receive a college degree. Accidents happen where children come before parents are ready. If that happens, priorities need to shift so that both parents finish school before going to work, in addition to caring for the child. No one knows what the future holds, and if a stay-at-home parent loses their spouse for any reason, caring for children and working will be next to impossible without a degree.

Is it right to scoff at a stay-at-home parent? No. But the stay-at-home parent should be responsible to contribute to the world after children have left the home. The best way to do that is to get your education before taking up kids.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

BSA Shuts Down Troop for Gay Scoutmaster

by Brig Bagley

22 April 2014

Geoff McGrath was not hiding his homosexuality when his Church sponsor hired him to lead the local scout troop in Seattle. All of the 15 boys and their parents supposedly were aware of and approved of McGrath as a competent and trustworthy leader for the scouts. When BSA caught wind of an interview of McGrath on TV where he noted his homosexuality, the organization sent a letter to Rev. Monica Cosaro requesting she fire McGrath.

Cosaro refused to comply, resulting in BSA's revoking of the troop's charter and forbidding use of any BSA materials or trademarks. Cosaro and her church believe in equality and she has performed a number of same-sex marriages. It was extremely disappointing to her, let alone McGrath, that the policies of BSA trampled over her and her troop's beliefs.

The boys of the troop will have the opportunity to transfer to other units. But those affected by the dissolved group hope this brings enough attention to invoke change in Boy Scouts of America. Several businesses have halted their support of boy scouts since the ban on gay leaders was upheld, including Disney, Intel, and AT&T. Although boys are allowed to participate as scouts if gay, gay leaders are forbidden to volunteer or participate.

Sexuality has no discussion in scouting, and forbidding participation on the basis of sexuality violates that policy. The risk of sexual misconduct should be judged by the individual's character, instead of the sexuality of said individual. Heterosexual leaders have molested scouts in the past, making the ban on homosexuals invalid, unfair, and discriminatory.

Read more here: http://fox13now.com/2014/04/22/boy-scouts-of-america-shuts-down-seattle-troop-over-gay-scoutmaster/

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Atheists and Mormons

by Brig Bagley

17 April 2014

A group of Mormons and Atheists gathered in a panel for what what hoped to be a amicable discussion on the misconceptions of both sides. Atheists have been growing in Utah, and have even purchased ads on prominent billboards in downtown Salt Lake. With history of Mormons teaching against atheism, even recently, this was an important discussion for understanding.

Recent LDS conference Quotes:

"At the same time, atheism, the secular religion, is admitted to class, and our youngsters are proselyted to a conduct without morality." - Boyd Packer

"As prophesied, we live in a time when the darkness of secularism is deepening around us. Belief in God is widely questioned and even attacked in the name of political, social, and even religious causes. Atheism, or the doctrine that there is no God, is fast spreading across the world." - Robert Hales

The Mormons claimed that the largest misconception by non-believers was being exclusionary. Mormons are taught to let others worship "how, where, or what they may." Although Mormons are taught to love everyone, even Boyd Packer warned against tolerance overruling morals. And in fact, members are regularly interviewed for "worthiness", which excludes unworthy members from participating in many church activities, including ceremonies like public prayer and temple worship. some are even denied or revoked membership when a church leader determines a person to be unworthy. Is that not the exclusionary nature of the church?

The Atheists believed they are often wrongly associated with immorality. Morality is chosen by the individual, instead of defined by a religion. Of course, the two will differ, but being an atheist does not make one a lawless, loveless criminal. That comes from imbalanced people that lack empathy.

Atheist's quest is to save the world from religious brainwashing, and often actively express their views in the forms of blogs, protests, and proselyting. Religious people say it is fine for people to not believe, as long as they don't shove atheism down their throat. But isn't one of the greatest callings among the religious to "spread the word" door to door? There's certainly a double standard there.

While neither party will fully grasp the other, the panel was seen as mostly good. Mormons believe to be the saviors to lost atheists, while Atheists believe to be the redemption from a suppressed, close-minded, and brain-washed community.

Dallin Oaks Speaks Out On Religious Freedom

by Brig Bagley

17 April 2014

LDS Leader Dallin Oaks voices his concern for the controversies between free speech, freedom of religion, and non-discrimination. He was interviewed, and is scheduled to speak to students at UVU at the Spring Symposium.

Read more here: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=29515718&nid=148&title=strength-of-religious-freedom-must-be-built-in-us-courts-lds-leader-says&s_cid=queue-13

Monday, April 14, 2014

Traditional Marriage Supporters Rally at Capitol Friday after Amendment 3 Case in Denver

by Brig Bagley

14 April 2014

Duplicating the efforts by same-sex marriage supporters, traditional marriage supporters welcomed home the state officials and their attorneys after the hearing of the Amendment 3 case in Denver Thursday. It was a last-minute effort by the Eagle Forum, and several groups showed up to voice their support of banning the legalization of same-sex couples' ability to marry in Utah.

Although Sean Reyes, the AG of Utah doesn't voice his opinion and only says he is "fighting for the laws passed by the people of Utah," it is undoubtedly his belief and duty to Mormon policy to protect the religion's stance. Supporters of same-sex marriage appreciated his amiable approach before the case, but the plaintiffs were confused and believe Reyes doesn't understand "the real harm" he is causing to so many Utah families.

Even if 66 percent of Utah approved of the same-sex marriage ban in 2004, surveys show that the majority now has reversed 10 years later. Why protect so adamantly a law that is now outdated? Why waste so many tax dollars for a minority? Because Reyes and his much of his team pitch for the largely LDS influenced government. Using an official legal excuse as an answer to the press is how he believes he can stay on the good side of all Utah citizens. It's all about people pleasing and re-election. And his religion, of course.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Amendment 3 Case Updates

by Brig Bagley

11 April 2014

I don't have much more to offer personally on the court case. The arguments, thoughts, and feelings on both sides remain the same. The comments on the news forum are still both understanding as well as offensive and misinformed. The case will be close, and we won't have a final answer until early summer is the best estimate.