So, the NBA Finals concluded last night with an impressive (and lop-sided) victory by the Boston Celtics. Although I didn't watch the first quarter (I finished my exam in a rush so I could get home and watch the rest of the game...I hope I passed), it seems that the first quarter and the first 7-8 minutes of the second quarter were the real challenge for the Celtics. The rest of the game looked like the Lakers hadn't even shown up for the game. The Celitcs completely shut down Kobe's offense, not to mention Gasol and Fisher. I must admit that Odom had a pretty fair game through the first half. The second half was a nightmare for fans of the purple and gold.
Allen, Garnett, and Pierce played their games superbly (and Pierce deserves that Finals MVP Trophy). But the guy who really kept the game out of the reach of the Lakers was Rajon Rondo #9. That guy was amazing last night!! He had 6 steals (he averaged less than 3 per game in the regular season and most of them came from Kobe. He really kept the team fired up throughout the second half with his magnanimous play! My hat is off to the Celtics!
Here's to the Celtics!! And here's to a repeat next year!! (Unless the Jazz make it past the second round)
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
"As California goes, so goes the nation"? -- NOT!
I've refrained from commenting on this topic for a month, but I can restrain myself no longer. (In fact, this court decision was the catalyst for me to start this blog in the first place.) As a result, this post may greatly hinder my chances at ever seeking a public office someday, but I feel that to not post about it would render me a silent accomplice.
I am an American! As an American, I love the Constitution! So when a State Supreme Court says that the founding document of their state's government (and by extension, the national government) upholds marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, I must emphatically say that I disagree!!
I reject the notion that such an idea could come from such a sensational document. I find it hard to believe that over a hundred years ago when that founding document was written, that the writers of that state's constitution envisioned a circumstance when their words would disgrace the sanctity of marriage by allowing it to be changed from the hallowed union between a man and a woman. Please remember that California was populated by Mexicans at the time of its admission into the Union. Catholicism was huge in the Mexican culture. Can you imagine that the Bishop in Mexico or the Pope would teach their followers to condone this type of disunion? I should think not. Thankfully, the current leadership of the Catholic Church in California continues to reject the idea that marriage is anything besides the union between a woman and a man. Here's an exerpt from a CNN article.
[The] Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California, issued a statement on behalf of seven bishops Monday, saying the Catholic Church "cannot approve of redefining marriage.'Marriage' has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended," the statement said. "The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition. Its meaning is given, not constructed."
I whole heartedly agree with the Catholic Church's position on this! In a sense, the Bishops are echoing words used by other church leaders in recent years (and throughout history):
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
The Justices from the California Supreme Court ruled that a government regulation banning same-sex couples from obtaining a marriage license was unconstitutional. Their reasoning for that is so twisted it'll make your head turn. They ruled that since marriage has been identified as such a sacred right that it is unconstitutional to deny anyone the right to get married. Did you catch that? At first, it doesn't make sense. But then when you think about it, it starts to seem like it should make sense. However, in reality it doesn't make sense. Judges should be more responsible than that!! Let me illustrate.
This Christian Nation was founded on Christian principles. Hence, the references to God in our founding documents. As Christians, it is a part of Christianity to get married and teach our children to become Christians as well, right? Through the years, marriage has been a hallowed institution by this nation. In fact, our Federal Government was so protective of marriage that they sought to start a war with a little religious group who sought to have more than one wife. (ring any bells). They are still doing that today! (For examples, just google FLDS, Texas, polygamy). We can see that marriage is a special and protected institution. Now, here's where the messed up reasoning of the CA Supreme Court comes in. They said that because of the fact that marriage was so protected that it shouldn't be denied to anybody. They view marriage as an inalienable right protected under their constitution. Nowhere in their Constitution does it say that marriage is an inalienable right. The closest it comes is when they say that:
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
In discussing the constitutional right to marry in Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711 (Perez), then Justice Traynor in the lead opinion quoted the seminal passage from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390. There the high court, in describing the scope of the “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the federal Constitution, stated that “ ‘[w]ithout doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ ” (Perez, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added [“to marry” italicized by Perez], quoting Meyer, 262 U.S. 390, 399.) The Perez decision continued: “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.” (Perez, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714.)
I am an American! As an American, I love the Constitution! So when a State Supreme Court says that the founding document of their state's government (and by extension, the national government) upholds marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, I must emphatically say that I disagree!!
I reject the notion that such an idea could come from such a sensational document. I find it hard to believe that over a hundred years ago when that founding document was written, that the writers of that state's constitution envisioned a circumstance when their words would disgrace the sanctity of marriage by allowing it to be changed from the hallowed union between a man and a woman. Please remember that California was populated by Mexicans at the time of its admission into the Union. Catholicism was huge in the Mexican culture. Can you imagine that the Bishop in Mexico or the Pope would teach their followers to condone this type of disunion? I should think not. Thankfully, the current leadership of the Catholic Church in California continues to reject the idea that marriage is anything besides the union between a woman and a man. Here's an exerpt from a CNN article.
[The] Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California, issued a statement on behalf of seven bishops Monday, saying the Catholic Church "cannot approve of redefining marriage.'Marriage' has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended," the statement said. "The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition. Its meaning is given, not constructed."
I whole heartedly agree with the Catholic Church's position on this! In a sense, the Bishops are echoing words used by other church leaders in recent years (and throughout history):
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
The Justices from the California Supreme Court ruled that a government regulation banning same-sex couples from obtaining a marriage license was unconstitutional. Their reasoning for that is so twisted it'll make your head turn. They ruled that since marriage has been identified as such a sacred right that it is unconstitutional to deny anyone the right to get married. Did you catch that? At first, it doesn't make sense. But then when you think about it, it starts to seem like it should make sense. However, in reality it doesn't make sense. Judges should be more responsible than that!! Let me illustrate.
This Christian Nation was founded on Christian principles. Hence, the references to God in our founding documents. As Christians, it is a part of Christianity to get married and teach our children to become Christians as well, right? Through the years, marriage has been a hallowed institution by this nation. In fact, our Federal Government was so protective of marriage that they sought to start a war with a little religious group who sought to have more than one wife. (ring any bells). They are still doing that today! (For examples, just google FLDS, Texas, polygamy). We can see that marriage is a special and protected institution. Now, here's where the messed up reasoning of the CA Supreme Court comes in. They said that because of the fact that marriage was so protected that it shouldn't be denied to anybody. They view marriage as an inalienable right protected under their constitution. Nowhere in their Constitution does it say that marriage is an inalienable right. The closest it comes is when they say that:
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Now, you (and several thousands of other people) are probably thinking, well isn't this just the same thing as women's suffrage and civil rights? On the surface, it may seem that way. But different from race, sex, color, ethnicity, disability, etc, sexual orientation is not considered a protected class. The difference is that protected classes cannot change the biology of what they are. I can no more stop being white than I can stop being a man! My actions, however, I have complete control over.
I hope that we can realize that this is just one of the Adversary's tactics to twist up the words of our beloved Constitutions! Just like he manipulated God's words to Adam & Eve in the garden (See Moses 4:7, 10-11), he is trying to manipulate us to think that we should accept this type of ruling because it "protects" marriage by allowing everyone to have that chance. I am all for allowing everyone the chance to get married! But let it be as God ordained it in the beginning and not as man has constructed it.
-Cory-
Additional Information for your reading pleasure:
This is a quote from the Mayor of San Francisco about being able to perform a same-sex marriage today.
"This is an extraordinary moment in history," [San Francisco Mayor Gavin] Newsom told a cheering, standing-room-only crowd at City Hall. "I think today, marriage as an institution has been strengthened."
If you're interested in reading the opinion(s) of the Justices regarding this decision, here is the link where you can find it. I'll warn you now, it is a 172 page document.
In recognizing, however, that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right — “a fundamental right of free men [and women]” (Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714) —the governing California cases establish that this right embodies fundamental interests of an individual that are protected from abrogation or elimination by the state. Because our cases make clear that the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section 1, and of the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of article I, section 7, it is apparent under the California Constitution that the right to marry — like the right to establish a home and raise children — has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it.
If you're interested in reading the opinion(s) of the Justices regarding this decision, here is the link where you can find it. I'll warn you now, it is a 172 page document.
In recognizing, however, that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right — “a fundamental right of free men [and women]” (Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714) —the governing California cases establish that this right embodies fundamental interests of an individual that are protected from abrogation or elimination by the state. Because our cases make clear that the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section 1, and of the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of article I, section 7, it is apparent under the California Constitution that the right to marry — like the right to establish a home and raise children — has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Majority Opinion, In Re MARRIAGE CASES, p.63
In discussing the constitutional right to marry in Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711 (Perez), then Justice Traynor in the lead opinion quoted the seminal passage from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390. There the high court, in describing the scope of the “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the federal Constitution, stated that “ ‘[w]ithout doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ ” (Perez, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added [“to marry” italicized by Perez], quoting Meyer, 262 U.S. 390, 399.) The Perez decision continued: “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.” (Perez, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714.)
Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Majority Opinion, In Re MARRIAGE CASES, p.54
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Coolest Vocal Performance Ever!
I found this video and was entranced by the performances. It is awesome!
It is 3 Norwegian singers and a Chilean singer. The one who sings the last verse, Kurt Nilsen, was the World Idol in 2005.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
What is the BEST form of government?
We can learn many lessons from history about the problems of poor governmental structure. But what is the best form of government? Is it a Dictatorship? Is it a Socialist regime? Is it a Republic?
While there are pros and cons to each, I would have to agree with Plato: the best form of government is a Philosopher King. Okay, so I don't entirely agree with Plato. He suggested that if government were controlled by a single executive with ultimate power, then the world would be a lot better off. The problem with a single executive with absolute power is that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Joseph Smith taught that through "sad experience" we have learned that when men gain even a little power, it inflates their pride and causes corruption in their hearts. This was Plato's problem as well. So the question is how do you give ultimate power to a single executive without compromising the morality of the ruler? That question has been debated for centuries. The answer, lies in the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
The Book of Mormon gives us insight into the manner in which a man can exercise the ruling authority without the ruling authority exercising him. While in the Bible we have the examples of three kings who lost their kingdoms because of their thirst for power (Saul, David, and Solomon). In contrast, the Book of Mormon provides three examples of kings who served with their people and found joy and eternal happiness because of it (Mosiah, Benjamin, and Mosiah). Their lives show us the dichotomy between a moral exercise of power and the unjust (or immoral) exercise of power. In fact, the second Mosiah said it best when he explained that unrighteous kings "pervert the ways of all righteousness." (Mosiah 29:23).
In coming back to Plato, we cannot have just any old King. It must be a righteous king. In Plato's terminology, it will be a Philosopher King because a philosopher would know what to do for the good of the people. In short, a philosopher would know what is right in every situation. Now, how can a Philosopher, or any person for that matter, know what is right in every situation? They cannot (see Mosiah 29:12). However, with the added understanding of Book of Mormon (and a lesson from the civilization of the Jaredites & Nephites), Mosiah (the second) teaches that the ideal form of government would be a righteous king. This is similar to Plato's philosopher king but with one major exception: the Righteous King would be Jesus Christ. Can you even fathom a more perfect form of government than to have the most perfect person to have ever walked this earth be in charge? As men, we will always make mistakes and be subject to the temptations of power. But imagine a Man who never made a mistake, or who never succumbed to the fleshy temptation of power and dominion. That Man would be the Perfect Executive! But more importantly, that Man would be the Perfect Friend! and that, in my opinion, is the BEST form of government.
While there are pros and cons to each, I would have to agree with Plato: the best form of government is a Philosopher King. Okay, so I don't entirely agree with Plato. He suggested that if government were controlled by a single executive with ultimate power, then the world would be a lot better off. The problem with a single executive with absolute power is that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Joseph Smith taught that through "sad experience" we have learned that when men gain even a little power, it inflates their pride and causes corruption in their hearts. This was Plato's problem as well. So the question is how do you give ultimate power to a single executive without compromising the morality of the ruler? That question has been debated for centuries. The answer, lies in the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
The Book of Mormon gives us insight into the manner in which a man can exercise the ruling authority without the ruling authority exercising him. While in the Bible we have the examples of three kings who lost their kingdoms because of their thirst for power (Saul, David, and Solomon). In contrast, the Book of Mormon provides three examples of kings who served with their people and found joy and eternal happiness because of it (Mosiah, Benjamin, and Mosiah). Their lives show us the dichotomy between a moral exercise of power and the unjust (or immoral) exercise of power. In fact, the second Mosiah said it best when he explained that unrighteous kings "pervert the ways of all righteousness." (Mosiah 29:23).
In coming back to Plato, we cannot have just any old King. It must be a righteous king. In Plato's terminology, it will be a Philosopher King because a philosopher would know what to do for the good of the people. In short, a philosopher would know what is right in every situation. Now, how can a Philosopher, or any person for that matter, know what is right in every situation? They cannot (see Mosiah 29:12). However, with the added understanding of Book of Mormon (and a lesson from the civilization of the Jaredites & Nephites), Mosiah (the second) teaches that the ideal form of government would be a righteous king. This is similar to Plato's philosopher king but with one major exception: the Righteous King would be Jesus Christ. Can you even fathom a more perfect form of government than to have the most perfect person to have ever walked this earth be in charge? As men, we will always make mistakes and be subject to the temptations of power. But imagine a Man who never made a mistake, or who never succumbed to the fleshy temptation of power and dominion. That Man would be the Perfect Executive! But more importantly, that Man would be the Perfect Friend! and that, in my opinion, is the BEST form of government.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Obama/Clinton ticket: Dream Team or Nightmare?
I have really been looking forward to this post. Mostly because of the overall complexities of the decision that Obama now faces. By clinching the nomination (at least, we assume Clinton will bow out now), Obama has been placed in the situation of becoming the "leader" of the Democratic party. If he chooses to accept Clinton (Hillary, not Bill) as the VP, then he may unite the party and they would most likely beat McCain in the November election. For campaigning purposes, that is a great move to make. However, what happens on January 20, 2009 when Obama will have to find things for Clinton to do that will satsify her thirst for power but at the same time, allow him to run the show? Moreover, what will it be like for Obama to have Bill Clinton as the unofficial second VP? He has already been shown to be a loose cannon for his wife's campaign (that hasn't been helpful over the long run). What's to say that he would be "in control" during Obama's general election campaign, much less his presidency?
On the other side, if Obama chooses someone else in the VP spot, he is going to have to find something for Clinton to do in the administration because I am sure that Hillary has no desire to return to the Senate. What happens if Hillary becomes bitter and takes the 17million plus votes she won and pulls a Ross Perot and steals the election from Obama and gives it to McCain? Not to mention the toll that would take on the Democratic party. Who knows, maybe there is history in the making and Hillary will form her own party and we'll have a three-party system in America. That would be interesting!
As you can see, there are hundreds of questions that all need an answer, and all one can do is speculate about their outcomes. For Obama, however, he needs to get this one right or it'll be short lived campaign and a very bitter Democratic Party.
On the other side, if Obama chooses someone else in the VP spot, he is going to have to find something for Clinton to do in the administration because I am sure that Hillary has no desire to return to the Senate. What happens if Hillary becomes bitter and takes the 17million plus votes she won and pulls a Ross Perot and steals the election from Obama and gives it to McCain? Not to mention the toll that would take on the Democratic party. Who knows, maybe there is history in the making and Hillary will form her own party and we'll have a three-party system in America. That would be interesting!
As you can see, there are hundreds of questions that all need an answer, and all one can do is speculate about their outcomes. For Obama, however, he needs to get this one right or it'll be short lived campaign and a very bitter Democratic Party.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Michigan and Florida: Are they half citizens?
Well, I wouldn't classify myself as a Democrat nor would I classify myself as a Republican. Shiree and I joke that I am more of a Republicrat (or a Democan, but I like the first one better). On Saturday, the Democractic National Committee (DNC) Rules Committee voted to reinstate all of the Michigan and Florida delegates (both pledged and unpledged) but only give them 1/2 of a vote. I'll admit that I was pleased with the outcome that the voters voices were heard in those states. That is truly an example of the democratic system in progress. However, I was displeased with some of the comments during the discussion about the Michigan delegates that some of the committee members (Clinton supporters, ironically enough) felt that giving delegates to Obama was wrong and that people's votes were being "hijacked." Granted, Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan (who knows why he pulled it in the first place - in my opinion a poor judgement call), but still, just because his name wasn't on the ballot, does not mean that Hillary Clinton won the state of Michigan. Conducting a fair analysis of the voting results in Michigan, where we assume that the "uncomitted" votes were for Obama, is a logical conclusion. However, there were still other contestants in that race. From my knowledge, John Edwards was still in the running and his name was not on the ballot either. Florida was a little bit cleaner cut, because both candidates received votes. However, Michigan is a little more fuzzy. In the end, I think it was the best choice under these circumstances.
I was hoping that the Democrats would stick to their guns and not allow any of the votes to count, but that sure wouldn't win them the presidency in the fall. Hence, we saw right before our eyes the political game that must be played in the two-party system.
I was hoping that the Democrats would stick to their guns and not allow any of the votes to count, but that sure wouldn't win them the presidency in the fall. Hence, we saw right before our eyes the political game that must be played in the two-party system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
