My Two Bits

Jeffrey Nielsen expressed his opinion on at least two matters in a recent op-ed piece. The first matter was his opposition to the Church reading a letter concerning a political/social/religious/spiritual matter. The second matter was his opinion on gay marriage. He lost his job as a result. His employer had been the Church, which naturally felt that he would no longer further the purposes of the Church. Here's a link to the op-ed piece.

Here's my first blush responses, and they deal mostly with the second matter, rather than the first.

He claims that homosexual behavior should not be a sin because it is biologically based. But the argument that right and wrong can be determined by our biological impulses does not fly with me. We are more than just our biology.

There are plently of biologically based behaviors that are sins. Some examples off the top of my head, some more "sinful" than others: Drinking coffee, tea and alcohol. Sleeping too long. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Afterall, "the natural man is an enemy to God."

I do not mean to imply that our bodies are inherently evil sin machines. We came here to earth to get them. But to say that rightness or wrongness is determined by biology gets things backwards. We have to determine what is right and wrong and then do our level best to make our biology work toward what is right and against what is wrong. A biological perspective informs the debate, but is not the final arbiter of rightness or wrongness.

God does create "biological processes that produce uncommon, yet perfectly natural results" and he condemns those who do not repent. Alcoholism, which has a genetic portion to it, springs to mind. I do not believe that God condemns anyone dealing with these biological processes because they have the biological process. I do believe that He condemns those who fail to repent of behaviors that they could repent of. I also believe that the measuring stick for repentence is different for every person, such that I will never know by looking at anyone's behavior whether they are repentant. But my lack of knowledge concerning other's relationship with God does not change the fact that certain behaviors are sin.

Next, polygamy is a marriage between a man and a woman. The man has multiple marriage relationships simultaneously. The women in a polygamous relationship (as it is usually understood), do not have a marriage relationship with each other. So the Church opposing gay marriage does not side-step our history of polygamy. I personally wonder if some of the actions taken against the Church back in the day might now form a cogent precedent to back up the arguments that it is an inherent government power to regulate marriage, despite the penumbral privacy rights being read into the Constitution.

Next, there is a threat to the instution of marriage, if not to individual marriages, by accepting gay marriage. Marriage is an institution because society and government have an interest in the creation of the next generation. And yes, I will say boldly that the primary reason for marriage is to make babies who grow into good adults. It's not the only reason. But it's a big one, particularly from a secular biological view. The reason that historically political marriages were so important wasn't becase everyone was so happy that two people were getting along together. They were important because those two people would hopefully make a baby that would inherit from both of them and so bring together the two groups of people and their property. Take away the pro-creative purpose of marriage and you take away a huge reason for the formal, legal relationship.

We are curently infatuated by romanitc love - which is extremely fleeting and unstable. Marriage is more than that. It is even more than a commitment between two people. It is a commitment between two people, God and the State (or just the State if you're not a religious person) with the intent of creating a new, beneficial unit of society.

Next, I think it's unfair to give people economic and contract advantages just because they have orgasms together. The way I choose to express my sexuality is by celibacy. Yet I could still find myself in a long term committed relationship with someone of the same sex, where we have all sorts of property and personal commitment between us. I would not be entitled to any of the benefits of marriage. Yet the only difference between my relationship and a lesbian relationship is the lack of orgasms (and the behavior leading up to that). Isn't that unfair? This is another reason why gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage. If I, and others in my situation, chose to make a stink about it, marriage's meaning could conceivably equate with the meaning of a business relationship.

Next, gay marriage is not in line with the plan of salvation. Temple worship and the former second missionary discussion, as well as the scriptures, particularly the Doctrine and Covenants, make it clear that marriage between a man and a woman and the bearing and rearing of children are critical to the individual eternal progression of the people being born and reared. The Church can not endorse gay marriage on that basis alone. And because of the way our courts behave it is reasonable to think that only a federal constitutuional amendment would sufficiently protect heterosexual marriage.

Next, the Church is heirarchical. Period. Heriarchy is not inherently evil. (See Abraham 3:16 and its environs.) So it is to be expected that Church leadership directs things. And this particular direction was a statement that the Church leadership supported a marriage amendment. But the Church did not order anyone to do anything. No one is going to lose their membership in the church if they did or didn't inform their Senator that he or she supported (or opposed) the marriage amendment. The leadership told its membership something that most of the members would not find surprising or disagreeable.

As far as loosing his job - I don't know enough to say whether the failure to renew his contract (he was not terminated, as far as I know) was the best way to handle the situation. But also, what else does he expect? If he worked in a business (which BYU is), and he spoke out like that against the management, he could expect the same treatement. Not renewing his contract may not have been the best move on BYU's part (or it may have been), but the manner in which Mr. Nielsen voiced his disagreement is questionable too. Of course, I don't know the background to why he did what he did. All I'm saying is that, considering BYU's affliation with the Church and his position as a professor, it is not surprising what the Church did, and that I draw no conclusions as to blame, if there is any.

My Cute Nephews

Went to my brother-in-law's graduation from law school this last weekend. We can all mourn the entrance of another lawyer into the family. But look at these cute kids that he and my sister made!



This brilliant boy is destined to follow in his father's footsteps.
Is there some gene on the Y chromosome that directs males to put their underwear on their head? Because this piece of "behavior" certainly seemed uninhibitedly instinctual.

Deposition

Deposition. 1. A witness's out-of-court testimony that is reduced to writing (usu. by a court reporter) for later use in court or for discovery purposes. 2. The session at which such testimony is recorded.

Deposition de bene esse. A deposition taken from a witness who will likely be unable to attend a schedueld trial or hearing. If the witness is not available to attend trial, the testimony is read at trial as if the witness were present in court.

Oral Deposition. A deposition given in response to oral questioning by a lawyer.

All of the above from Black Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.

That's what I did today - took my first deposition. Don't know how it went. It's not that strong of a case, and though the testimony was from an adverse witness, the testimony itself was not that damaging and in fact helpful in some places. Another attorney from the office was there and boy was I glad of that, because basically, I don't know what I'm doing. I've only ever attended one deposition before. I've read a few - but that's a far cry from actually being the one asking the questions. And I wasn't really prepared. It's kind of a difficult line to figure out. The client is behind in her payments, can't really afford to make any payments. So I don't want to spend hours and hours preparing when the low likelihood of getting paid is combined with the low likelihood of winning. Still and all, I didn't sleep well last night and I most certainly did not want to come into work today. I've got such a passive aggressive stubborn streak. It's no good. Blabber blabber blabber. I've got to get back to work - it's piling higher than an elephant's eye, so it ain't no beautiful morning.