Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Sorry For My Absence

I explained over on my other blog that I’m MOVING. Yeah, we’re getting new digs. So my posting schedule is all messed up right now. When I do have a chance to post I’ve been focusing on Domestic Dork because I’ve got a bunch of tutorials and a blogging contest entry I’ve been working on.

But things should settle down some time in December. Plus Adam will be done with the semester soon, which means he can help wrangle the munchkin which means {hopefully} more time for me to write. :)

Monday, November 16, 2009

Unpaid Clergy and Why That’s a Problem

Seems the LDS church is getting sued {again?}, along with the Boy Scouts of America, for sexual abuse of children. Obviously, sexual abuse of children happens in plenty of churches and you don’t need me to mention which ones. But this has me thinking…

See, on the local levels church leaders don’t get paid, nobody does. All positions are “volunteer” {and by ‘volunteer’ I mean ‘assigned-to-you-and-if-you-don’t-want-to-do-it-don’t-think-you-can-do-it-or-absolutely-hate-the-idea-of-doing-it-and-turn-them-down-then-you’re-turning-down-GOD-and-shame-on-you-now-go-home-and-feel-guilty-you-faithless-selfish-failure-as-a-disciple-of-Christ’}. This includes Boy Scout leaders. This includes Bishops, who are allowed to interview children and teens alone about many issues including sex, this includes Sunday school teachers, etc. Now, I will be the first to say that most of these leaders have good hearts, and wouldn’t hurt a child. My issue is that some of them are *not* trustworthy but are often trusted implicitly by other church members who assume that just because it’s a fellow Mormon they’re a good person and it’s OK to leave your child in their care {remember, most cases of sexual abuse are committed by people who are familiar to the victim…not by strangers}. And this would be a lot less of an issue if people were hired for these jobs.

Mormons take a lot of pride in their unpaid clergy. It often inspires condescension towards churches that pay their ministers. But is it really a good thing? I get the idea that followers of Christ want to give to “him and his church” but I’m not so sure that system is working. Aside from the fact that certain positions are absolute time sucks which take a person away from their family for hours upon hours upon hours each week with only “spiritual rewards” there are no background checks and no training for these people. Do you see why I think this is a problem? Leaders are expected to “follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit” when counselling with members. Now, you all know I don’t believe in the Holy Ghost anymore than I believe in Casper the Friendly Ghost. For one thing, if there really were an entity providing a conduit to the will of God, then why the hell is God telling people to call child abusers to positions in which they are in charge of children? Just saying’.

The way I see it, you have a scenario in which people are given trust and responsibility without having earned it. And that can create all sorts of problems. Let’s say Sister {in the LDS church everyone is called Brother and Sister instead of Mr. and Miss/Mrs./Ms.}, let’s say Sister Smith is having marital problems and goes into see Bishop Jones. Bishop Jones has absolutely zero background/training in psychology, or marriage counselling. He’s an accountant. But, because “God called him as Bishop” Sister Jones believes he’s qualified to help her. Let’s say Sister Smith’s marital problems are *really* serious. Let’s say she’s being abused. Maybe Bishop Jones counsels her to head to the women’s shelter to protect herself and her children. That’s probably good counsel. But let’s say Bishop Jones isn’t her assigned Bishop. Let’s say Bishop Thompson is, and let’s say Bishop Thompson counsels her to figure out what she’s doing that might be causing her husband to get angry with her, and tells her she needs to be humble.


See, there is a handbook that’s supposed to provide a guide to priesthood leaders. But it’s just a manual to Church policies. In the end these leaders aren’t getting checked up on to make sure they follow those guidelines, and I wonder how many of them actually read the whole thing before they start spouting their opinions as advice…er, I mean, before they listen to the Holy Ghost telling them what to say. There’s no predictable mode of operation. Leaders responsible for counsel and for church discipline are not trained for their positions, not even a little. But if the church had paid local clergy like they do at the upper levels, and believe me they CAN afford it, they could begin to solve a lot of problems, starting with child abuse.

ETA: Fellow ExMo and blogger Curmudgeon wrote about this very topic. Don't miss his post!!!

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Guest Post

I met Daniel when I was a freshmen at BYU. We’ve recently reconnected via Facebook. I was so impressed with his response to the recent announcement from the LDS church that I asked him to write a guest post. Daniel’s blog can be found here. And you can see some of his FANTASTIC artwork here.

Salt Lake City just passed an ordinance that protects gay people from being fired from their jobs or evicted from their homes simply because they are gay. In an unprecedented move, an official spokesman supported the ordinance on behalf of the LDS Church before city council. This is an important ordinance--I know because I live in Utah, and I am frequently scared that I could be fired from my job or kicked out of my apartment because I am gay. Don't believe it happens? Think again.
One of my friends was living in a privately owned apartment in Provo. The apartment complex as a whole was contracted with BYU. When BYU discovered that my friend was gay and had previously been in a relationship (he was, at the time, single and celibate), BYU called the apartment manager and forced the owner to evict him from his apartment.

I do appreciate the Church for standing up for this ordinance, though the ordinance would have passed with or without the Church's approval. I hope that this move will set an example for members of the LDS church and let them know that it's okay to support gay people and their rights in both the public and private sphere. Mormon friends, the stamp of approval is there--you can be a gay ally!
But as a whole, this small move is not enough. While it might make the Mormon Church appear moderate and reasonable, the reality is that the Church didn't make any concessions on this PR stunt. Case in point, the scenario involving my friend could still happen to me.

It's not just that the ordinance only applies to Salt Lake City and I live in Provo, though that is in and of itself significant. (Where was the LDS Church during the Common Ground Initiative when this very issue was brought before the State legislature?) Even if that same ordinance were passed in Provo, exemptions that the LDS church made sure were included in the ordinance would allow BYU to evict people from it's contracted housing even though it doesn't own that housing or collect rent from its tenants.

Says Michael Otterson, the official LDS spokesman, "In drafting this ordinance, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations — for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements," he said. No wonder the LDS supported the ordinance! It seems they don't want anyone else to fire or evict gay people, as long as they still can.

As the Church stated, this ordinance protects common-sense rights. It shouldn't be significant that the Church stands up for common-sense rights, it should be a given. My head will turn when the Church stands up for equality and fairness even when it isn't obvious, and even when it means compromising previous positions that were discriminatory. And the opportunity for them to do that will come in the near future if they want to take it up, because as a gay Utah resident, my rights are still not protected. Equality for LGBT people isn't a reality yet.


Well, Duh

I am opposed to the nuking of unborn, gay whales.

I support initiatives to outlaw stealing candy from babies.

I think burning your neighbor's house to the ground is wrong.

I think poisoning kittens is mean.

I am opposed to tattooing "LOSER" on people's fore heads against their will.

I am against mandatory euthanasia of menopausal women.

I support minorities' right to breathe.

I believe all people should have the right to call rainbows "pretty."

I think cancer is bad.

I think only a vile group of people wouldn’t support a law to protect LGBT persons from housing and job discrimination and that it is absolutely not newsworthy to state your support of basic human decency (unless of course you’re pulling a PR stunt in a pathetic attempt to draw attention away from all the other shitty, anti-gay things you do).

Just sayin’.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009


This section will be added to over time. If you have a question you’d like answered please leave it in the comments.

Why do you call Adam your boyfriend/partner? I thought you guys were married.

Please see this post for an explanation.

Gay Marriage: The Debate Continues

I received the following comment on my last post about gay marriage.

I just have issues with the re-definition of marriage. You can say it "quacks" like a duck but really, it doesn't. Where do you draw the line? Should elementary and secondary school gym classes all shower together? Who has the right to tell a boy that he isn't a girl and so he isn't allowed to shower with the other girls? Marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't see why "gays" feel the need to redefine it? Make something else special and create a process for that. Call it "Euphoria" or what ever you want, but if you redefine marriage, then we should be able to call man-woman interactions gay (because according to you, we should be able to call anything whatever we want). Just a thought...

I’d like to address this very thoroughly…so here goes…

“I just have issues with the re-definition of marriage.”

Which one? The so called definition of marriage has changed countless times throughout history, as I pointed out already in my previous post. In fact, gay marriage is nothing new and has been practiced before modern times. So which cultural idea of marriage should we go back to? How about one in which women are property with no rights? How about one where parents arrange the marriage for their children. How about one in which divorce is illegal? Oh…wait. You mean you have issues with defining marriage as anything other than YOUR definition? I see.

Well, here’s how I define marriage:

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways, depending on the culture or demographic. (via Wikipedia)

Huh. That definition says nothing about the sex of the parties entering into the marriage agreement. How ‘bout that? If you ask me, I’d say it’s a step forward for a culture to re-define it’s notions about marriage to benefit its citizens, to be more accepting and inclusive, and to provide further protection for peoples who have been, up to that point, without those protections. I think it’s just dandy that people finally came to their senses and realized “hey, maybe women are people after all” and changed marriage laws accordingly. I think it would be just dandy if we did the same for gays too.

But props to you for being honest. I agree, you do have issues. And since I’m not you nor your psychiatrist I can only guess at what those issues may be. However, you have the power to ask yourself and find out. Why do you have issues? Why does it bother you so damn much that gays who enter into a social union or legal contract that creates kinship call it the same thing you call your social union or legal contract that creates kinship? Are you sure you aren’t biased? Are you sure your issues aren’t with gays rather then semantics? Because I’m having a hard time seeing why, if you don’t have issues with gays you have issues with the semantics.

“You can say it "quacks" like a duck but really, it doesn't.”

Oh really? Two people fall in love, get engaged, get married, maybe expand their family with children, live together, celebrate anniversaries, take care of each other in sickness and health, for richer or poorer as long as they both shall live. Quack! Quack!

Oh…wait…they don’t have sex like you do! Uh-oh! Well, never mind then. Clearly sex is what defines a marriage. While we’re on the subject, what do you think about attacking other people’s marriages based on their sex lives? We could put cameras in peoples bedrooms and anybody we catch doing things considered improper in, oh, say…LDS culture, would have their marriage invalidated on the spot. So no oral sex, no viewing pornography, no mutual masturbation, and definitely no open marriages (regardless of whether it’s working for that couple).

That’s ridiculous you say? Why yes, yes it is. It is ridiculous for one group of people to throw their time and money extensively into a cause that takes away the civil right of civil marriage from couples who do not live up to their own notion of religious marriage. It is ridiculous to ignore all the similarities between one marriage between two loving, committed people and zero in on the sexual differences.

“Where do you draw the line? Should elementary and secondary school gym classes all shower together? Who has the right to tell a boy that he isn't a girl and so he isn't allowed to shower with the other girls?”

Yikes! That’s one big, ugly red herring you’ve got there! Let’s feed it to the logic shark shall we?

First off, we’re talking about gay adults entering into legal and social agreements, not children in gym class. Second, even if we were talking about children in gym class I think you might benefit from reading up on the differences between homosexuality and transexuality because you seem to be mixing them up. Gay boys do not think they are girls. Third this almighty “line” you mention? It gets drawn one law and one policy at a time. The gay marriage laws/policies are about gay marriage. They wont magically jump into schools and force changes there. You’re fear mongering. Fourth, are there really schools that still have group showers for gym kids? Seriously? My school didn’t even have showers for us period. And fifth and finally, putting aside reason for a moment, lets pretend calling gay marriage “marriage” somehow creates the unlikely scenario you’ve tossed into your comment. Here’s an easy solution: make private showers. It’d be better for everybody and would certainly cut down on a lot of anxiety, body shame, and hazing (that happens regardless of sexual orientation).

“Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Except, you know, when it’s not. But I’ve already addressed that once in this post and once in my last post. But the point I’ve been trying to make, and maybe you missed it, is that civil marriage is what society says it is. So how about we start being more inclusive and less homophobic and worry about our own damn marriages instead of everybody else's?

“I don't see why "gays" feel the need to redefine it?”

That’s because it seems that you haven’t truly put yourself in their shoes in an effort to treat them as you would like to be treated. Try it sometime, empathy is fantastic. I promise, trying to understand gays won’t make you gay. And you know what? I’ll help you out…read on:

Your purposed solution to the gay marriage issue is “make something else special and create a process for that. Call it "Euphoria" or what ever you want.” Really? Call it whatever they want? How about “marriage?” Oh wait..

You said you don’t see why gays feel the need to use the word “marriage.” Stop. Think. Think hard. You said you don’t see why gays feel the need to use the word “marriage”…within an argument all about how you don’t want them to use the word. You’re basically saying “hey! I care about this word and don’t like how you’re using it! You should just stop caring about this word so I can be in charge of what it means and how it is used! That’d be great! Thanks!” Clearly words mean a lot to you (they mean MILLIONS of dollars to certain groups of people…*cough cough Mormons cough cough*). Now, tell me again that you don’t understand why they matter to someone else?

Let’s make up a dorky name for YOUR marriage…”Euphoria” is already taken so how about “Blissisitude” or “Blissyness.” I like “Blissyness,” let’s go with that. How would you feel if I called your marriage a “Blissyness” and your spouse your partner?  Everybody else gets to call their marriage a marriage, but not you. Now, be honest, that wouldn’t bother you? Put yourself in their shoes.*

Ask a Latter-day Saint how they feel when others say “you’re not Christian!” They’ll often say “Yes we are! We believe in Jesus Christ! We believe he’s our savior! His name is in the title of our church!” The naysayers argue back “well…you don’t believe in the Nicene creed!” Or…in other words Mormons don’t fit the mainstream’s definition of “Christian.” I don’t think you really need me to point out the parallels there.

Now, tell me why you don’t see why words matter? They sure as hell seem to matter to you.

“but if you redefine marriage, then we should be able to call man-woman interactions gay (because according to you, we should be able to call anything whatever we want). Just a thought...”

Just an illogical thought. I’m going to outline a basic logical premise for you.

If all dogs are mammals. Are all mammals dogs? No. Just because A = B does not mean B = A. If all dogs are mammals. And all dogs have paws. Do all mammals have paws? No (for example, whales or humans do not). Just because A = B and A = C does not mean B =C. Is that clear?

  • A “marriage”
  • B word
  • C definition that changes based on culture

A = B. A = C. That does not mean B = C.

So no, not according to me do I think we can call heterosexual relationships “gay” and be accurate. But thanks for putting those words in my mouth. They were yummy. And by yummy I mean “bitter and illogical.” Same difference.

I’ve been pretty rough on you, or rough on your comment at least. Anonymous comments get treated a certain way ‘round here. If you don’t respect your opinion enough to put your name on it, then why should I respect your opinion? I point this out because I want my readers to know that should they want to leave comments I’ll try to play nicely, assuming they’re brave enough to own their words. I say that as a person who, when I was still a believer, DID put my name on my comments when I (and I’m not proud of this) when I defended Prop H8. I did it, but it terrified me. So I understand why you might not be willing to do the same. I would just like to say that if you’re not willing to link your name with your beliefs on the matter then please ask yourself why that is. Is it because you’re chicken? Or is it maybe because they don’t quite ring true with what’s in your heart?

Think about it.

*From now on I’ll be referring to all marriages as relationships/domestic partnerships/etc. and all husbands/wives/spouses as boyfriends/girlfriends/partners. If gays shouldn’t care what those things are called then certainly straight people shouldn’t either. Right? I wonder how long it will take before someone is offended…

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Some Common Arguments Against Gay Marriage

I know I talk about this a lot. But I think about it a lot. Why? Maybe because I’ve always obsessed over what I find to be unjust. Or maybe because I’m trying to make up for lost time. But I feel the need to address it again. This time I’d like to list some common arguments against gay marriage, or against its supporters and my responses.

“I’m OK with domestic partnerships. Just don’t call it marriage.”

If it looks like a marriage. And it acts like a marriage. And it gets benefits like a marriage. And it quacks like a marriage. Then why the hell can’t we call it a marriage?

If you aren't prejudiced against gays, why do you seem to think it demeans your marriage to have it described using the same word? I guess my point is two-fold. First, if you don't have a problem with gays why do you care if they use the same word you do to describe their monogamous relationships? Second, if you do admit you have a problem with gays {maybe because your religious belief prescribes such} why do you have a problem with gays using the same word you do to describe their monogamous relationships? I don't approve of abusive relationships, but I don't in any way feel threatened by them being called marriages. It says nothing about me or my marriage.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s just what it is! You can’t change the definition.”

Why not? We’ve been changing the definition for millennia. Marriage is between one man and one woman…except when it’s between one man and several women, or one man and two women and some handmaidens too, or one woman and a couple men, or even marriage between a man and a man. Yes, that’s right. Same-sex marriage isn’t new.

“The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination.”

Why would anyone even use this argument anymore? Look, unless you’ve sworn off shellfish, are OK with slavery, want to outlaw divorce, and think it’s a great idea to follow EVERY rule in the Bible then you’re picking and choosing. Picking and choosing isn’t a bad idea. The Old Testament is filled with all kinds of crazy, awful shit {in fact reading it helped lead me to question and ultimately leave the Mormon church}. So please, pick and choose! But how about you try picking the parts that say love your neighbor, not the parts that say stick your nose into his business and tell him he can’t marry the man he loves?

Also, I don’t believe in your Bible anymore than I believe in the Siddhartha, or Dianetics, or the Iliad. And I sure as hell don’t want you making laws for me and my friends based on any of those religious texts. Let’s make laws based on group ethics, logic, and tolerance instead of superstition religious belief please.

Also, what about churches that do condone same-sex marriage? Why does your religious belief get to pre-empt their own?

“Gays and their supporters hate us. They’re bigots for calling us bigots. We don’t hate anybody. We’re not bigots. They’re boycotting us and blacklisting us.”

Well these guys are bigots. And so were these guys. “But I’m not like them!” That’s great. It’s really awesome that you don’t go around beating gays to death. But stop and think for a minute. Here’s a community of people who are all too familiar with being hated, most often by the religious. And then you come along and support the same initiatives that people like that would support. Is it really that surprising they think you hate them? You’re playing for the same team of people that do hate them, virulently. If you’ve ever found yourself thinking “I don’t want to support a group of people who can hate me so much, and call me names, and who can act like gays acted in the Prop 8 backlash” I have to ask…why can you support the aims of groups who act the way anti-gays do? Why do you base your support of a cause on the understandably emotional outbursts of a hurt minority instead of the merits of their argument? And why so much focus on the No on 8 group’s behavior? Were they the only ones behaving poorly? People act regrettably when they’re upset {even the police aren’t above reproach}. But that’s not a reason to pick sides, especially since you’d have to pick nobody’s side.

And why on earth is there all this anger about boycotts? Boycotts are nothing new. I boycott Nestle because I don’t like what they do. Will my boycotting change their behavior? Well, decades of boycott haven’t so far. But I’m still gonna do it because I’m speaking with my money. I’m saying “I don’t approve” with my wallet. To me, boycotts, like flag burning, are a form of speech, protected speech. And I will defend your right to boycott anyone you feel deserves it. LGBT persons and their straight allies are well within their rights to boycott supporters of legislation that they find reprehensible and hurtful. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. You are every bit as entitled to your opinion that homosexuality is wrong and you are free to donate your time and money to enforce that opinion. But you are not entitled to be free from accusations of prejudice for doing so.

Let’s look at the word hate and the word bigot. First “hate.”

  • dislike intensely; feel antipathy or aversion towards; "I hate Mexican food"; "She detests politicians"
  • the emotion of intense dislike; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action
  • Hatred (or hate) is a word that describes the intense feelings of dislike. It can be used in a wide variety of contexts, from hatred of inanimate objects (e.g. vegetables, bicycles, tables, chairs, etc...) to hatred of other people, or even entire groups of people.
  • hated - despised: treated with contempt {emphasis mine}

From where LGTB persons (and us, their supporters) stand we see a group of people so opposed to gays and having so little sympathy for gays {aka antipathy} that they felt it demanded the action of changing the California constitution {in the case of Prop 8} to outlaw them marrying each other. Their love for each other has been deemed contemptible and not worthy of protection.

Now, “bigot.”

  • a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
  • one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion ...
  • bigoted - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"
  • bigoted - Being a bigot; biased; strongly prejudiced; forming opinions without just cause {emphasis mine}

From where LGTB persons (and us, their supporters) stand we see a group of people so intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and religions that they legislated those opinions in a way that forces other families to submit to them without just cause {not without cause, but without what I think is just cause as evidenced by this post rejecting the supposed reasons for outlawing gay marriage}.

We’re just calling them like we see them. Frankly, I’d rather be called a bigot for hating what I view as bigotry then be called a bigot for supporting causes that hurt real people {and more than just their feelings}.

And if it’s not hate, what is it? What is it that could inspire you to stick your nose in other people’s families and legislate love? Fear? Would you prefer being called homophobes? I doubt it. Is it because your religious leaders told you to? Would you prefer being called obedient drones? I doubt it. Prove to us it’s not hate. Show us an argument against gay marriage that actually makes sense and isn’t based on fear or religious belief and maybe we’ll stop thinking you have a thing against gays.

What if it were me? What if I was your friend and I told you I was a lesbian? Would you still have voted to keep me from marrying the person I loved? What if it were your son, or your daughter? Is your precious “definition” worth enough to you that you’d rather protect it then protect them? If yes, then that seems like hate to me. If no, then why on earth are you doing it to other people’s friends, and daughters, and sisters, and mothers, and brothers, and uncles, and sons, and grandmothers? These are REAL people. And this is REALLY important to them. They can’t just forget this and move on after the election is over because every day they’re reminded by society that their love isn’t valued by their neighbors and coworkers. Every day that they go home to their ‘boyfriend,’ or their ‘domestic partner’ they’re reminded that people around them find their relationship unworthy of the word ‘marriage’ because they aren’t heterosexual. So while you go home to your husband or wife and all the legal and social respect and protection that comes with those words they don’t. Please don’t forget that. Please remember that next time you just can’t understand why they think you hate them.

“It’s not the same as interracial marriage. Gay is a choice, being black isn’t.”

Oh really? “Well, OK. Maybe people are born with gay feelings, but they still choose to act upon them!” Yes, that’s right. Just like YOU choose to act upon your straight feelings. Just like you chose to marry the person you married because that was who YOU loved. You could have chosen not to. You could have chosen to marry someone else, or to not marry at all. But you didn’t. You loved who you loved and you married them. You didn’t have to ask for society’s permission. And I’m betting very few {if any} gay couples would have wanted to deny you that special day and that special commitment you made to each other. So why do you feel the need to prohibit other people’s choices? So you're against gay marriage? Don’t have one.

“I don’t want schools teaching my kids gay marriage is OK.”

*head desk*

Look, first off…government schools teach government values. End of story. They teach that drugs are bad, acceptance is good, and that the founding fathers were all freaking heroes to be worshipped {never mind their imperfections}. I promise, every school in this nation is teaching kids something that their parents don’t like. Some teach abstinence only sex ed, which I find irresponsible. But it’s impossible to create a curriculum that will please everybody. So your options are either homeschool your kid or make sure you teach them your values...you know, parent them? If my daughter goes to a school that teaches abstinence only you know what I’ll do? I’ll teach her about safe sex myself. You know what I won’t do? I won’t fund or support a campaign to outlaw the marriages of couples who haven’t had sex before their wedding night.

That said…this is a fear-creating argument not particularly based in reality.

“Marriage isn’t a civil right.”

Oh, OK then. So then if a majority votes to say you can’t get married you’d be cool with that? I guess it’s easy to decide something isn’t a right when you’ve already got one and it’s not under attack.

What is a civil right? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Protection from discrimination? Is marriage a civil right? Yes. I say it is. Civil marriage is a civil right. Gays have every right to pursue happiness as married, stable couples who are not discriminated against based on their sex or sexuality. By all means, don’t let them marry in your church or your temple if your religion is all hetero all the time. And don’t try to sell me that crap about the government forcing churches to marry gay couples against their beliefs. Last I checked Mormons weren’t forced to marry inter-ratial couples in the temple {nor are Mormons in Canada, where gay marriage is legal nationally, being forced to marry gays}. Protection for religion is built into the American Constitution. I promise, it’s not going anywhere any time soon. And I promise, by extending more freedom and respect and protection to gays you won’t be giving away yours no matter what the fear-mongers try to tell you.

And if civil marriage is a civil right then the majority, no matter how big, should never be allowed to vote it away from the minority.

I LOVE Stephen Colbert and other links

Hello! I’m busy writing my heart out for NaNoWriMo. But I’ll try to keep the blog posts coming as well. That said, I just watched part of last night’s episode of The Colbert Report. I laughed so hard. It was one of my favorite Colbert moments thus far. What was it about? It was about the kissing incident in Salt Lake City a while back. If you have a minute WATCH THE VIDEO. :) You can read an article about the segment here.

Here’s an article about an atheist bus ad that will be displayed in Seattle.

Also, please consider forgoing the pizza this weekend, or your latte and send that money to Jaeli’s family instead. Jaeli is a very sick baby girl. She has violent reactions to anything other than breastmilk and Jaeli’s mom needs help purchasing milk from the milk bank to keep her little girl alive. Giving about five dollars will purchase about an ounce of breastmilk.

ETA: If you're looking for another good cause to give to 8: The Mormon Proposition (a documentary coming out next year) is looking for financial help.