Happy Birthday John!

So I know I've been keeping this blog for awhile now and some of my family members' birthdays have past in the time, but I'm just now piecing things together and realizing that that thing I see some other bloggers do--like wishing people other than themselves happy birthday on their blogs--is a good idea. So, sorry other folks, but yeah for John! My favorite brother John! (I have a favorite brother David and a favorite brother Thom, too.) But you get to be the first!

Today is the big 31 for little John! (well, not so little. I think he's the tallest boy).
I didn't get a very good family shot last Christmas, but at least I got one, right?
The one below is a little more classic John, giving me that look that says, "Heidi, you're nuts, but I love ya, so I'll put up with ya." And that brings me to this--what are my favorite things about John? He's got a great sense of humor, a great smile and laugh to go with it--full of energy and optimism. He doesn't take himself too seriously and gives great hugs--and punches and self defense, demobilization moves, too--all in terms of affection.

Some of my favorite memories of John are his climbing up on top of the living room closet, him letting me braid his hair into millions of tiny little braids (this was when he was in high school and actually had hair), hanging out in Fort Collins and letting me teach him how to get his date's door, and then after I graduated from college and lived at home for awhile, we drove to Greeley together quite a bit for church things and had some good conversations.

I love you little bro and miss you! Hope you have a good birthday!

The Church's position on Prop 8

I found this on a friend's blog--good to know! I don't know if Cameron follows me--but thanks!
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

Some More connections, thoughts, proposition 8

I've continued to think about the subject, and a few more thoughts have come to mind. The connections are kind of hinted at, but I didn't even fully make them in my brain until this morning.
Interestingly, it's kind of a flip from the opinions I've read about leaving the decision about who they'll marry to the religions. But that's actually it exactly. In order to assure their right to the pursuit of happiness, or their agency, homosexuals should be allowed to "marry" if they choose to call it that, in their private circumstances, be it religiously or whatever, but let the rights and privileges be bound only within the religion and not be connected to the state.

That is, inasmuch as religion is an institution of state, this implies financial and legal obligations to its protection and to the protection of the participating parties. This is justified because marriage has been determined to have positive influences on the governed people, at least inasmuch as they service the children of the nation. Other thoughts have come to me that even without children, the unit of marriage benefits society in its best practice because marriages bring together the minds of both sexes in a way that no other organization can, and the uniting of the sexes' gifts and ways of thinking is a benefit to society.

Therefore, in order to justify the expenditures of government on the marriages of homosexual couples (inasmuch as it has been determined the government does expend), it would need to be proven that these unions add to society in the same way that the unions of heterosexuals do. Because these unions do not bring together the minds of both sexes, and the raising of children within such has not been determined to benefit society in the same way, then there is no justification for the inclusion of these unions under the government's protective and promotional measures as are instituted for the cause and institution of marriage.

Additionally, inasmuch as government funds are involved in the decision to include these unions in the legal definition, the voice of the people must be sought. Therefore, the judges exercised decisions outside of their powers, and the votes of the people should stand for the determination to maintain the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

California's Proposition 8

My aunt sent an email with a link to a blog that was passing on information about an interfaith fast today for Proposition 8. The blogger indicated in her post that the Church supported the proposition, and then there were a number of commentators from both sides jabbing each other about the issue. So, I'm going to start off by saying that I don't think I have that many readers who will be prone to comment, but if for whatever reason outsiders or insiders find this and want to comment, I welcome positive thoughts, particularly logical, kind-hearted notes and pieces of factual information. I do allow comments from anyone; however, I moderate them before they show up, so if you have unkind things to say, I might read them, but no one else will in this forum.

What I'd like to do here is explore a few things surrounding the issue and the Church's support (if this is indeed true. Today, as happens every October during political parading season, the bishop read the statement from the First Presidency reminding members of its political neutrality. It even had a line that I hadn't remembered hearing before that indicated members of both political parties had beliefs consistent with the teachings of the Church. That was good to hear.)

So, on to my reasoning:
A number of people both on the blog I read and in general when I've read things regarding this issue, point out the connection of marriage and religion, many trying to emphasize the connection, but without making logical points of connection and separation. The facts are that marriages can be made by religious officials and by state officials. Religions may have their opinions and enforce them about who they may marry, but the binding forces on the marriage are different between state and religion based on the authority of each of these offices.

Let's consider for a moment, how the nation would be affected if marriage were only an institution of religion. Since money is created and governed by the state, the religion could not enforce any monetary obligations on either member of the marriage party. This would mean there would be no such things as alimony, joint tax filings, or marriage-related tax breaks or tax increases. . I don't know enough about child support but it shouldn't be connected to marriage, so hopefully that wouldn't be affected, but otherwise, a wife would not have legal claim on her husband, nor a husband on his wife.

Given this much, it seems as if the state would have much fewer hassles, fewer forms, and monetary trials if they weren't associated with marriage.

Therefore, there must be a benefit to the state if they want to have some governance over the issue. In the case of financial crisis, perhaps the institution benefits them inasmuch as it creates jobs: tax people to handle all the ins and outs mentioned above; family-type lawyers and their associated workers to handle divorces and alimony.

But, well, I kind of think there's probably more to it than that. True enough, some governments might look to create a number of useless institutions just for the sake of jobs, but tax-payers don't like to pay for new institutions the government finances. And yet people haven't fussed about the government having government-paid people to handle the records associated with it--marriage licenses, etc. so the people must also like nor not mind that the state has governance over marriage. Given the above financial reasons, it seems it is in the people's interest to maintain the connection, so inasmuch as it is already an institution, it would be difficult for the government to remove the connection given the potential outcry of its people.

Now, to go back a minute, if there had never been a connection, what would be some benefits for a government to regulate marriage? (Supposing a new country were to form, for example.) Given statistics and study findings from existing countries in which marriage is a common institution (regardless the state vs. religion regulations), it would seem that marriage provides an assurance for the better education of its people. That is, there have been studies to indicate that children who live with married parents perform better in school. Therefore, this would indicate that promoting marriage would be a benefit to the state.

Along with this, although divorce is widespread, inasmuch as studies indicate the greater likelihood of parents to stay together if they are married than if they are not, this would add to the benefit of promoting marriage.

Do these pieces of information, however, indicate that governing marriage would be in their interest? This is a multi-faceted question. First, does governance constitute promotion? Not directly, no. Because government could decide against tax breaks and joint filings and still govern marriage, and in fact create tax increase to married couples, this would indicate that governance does not directly correlate with promoting marriage.

However, government can more effectively promote marriage by governing, or taking jurisdiction over it. Given the benefits to the people indicated earlier, such as the assistance with alimony as needed, and other financial benefits, such as potential tax breaks, some people would be more prone to marry than they would be if the governing of marriage worked against their favor. Therefore, yes, inasmuch as those studies are accurate, it would be in the government's interest not just to regulate marriage but to pass such laws as would promote it.

Questions also arise about the interest in government of regulating marriage for those couples who do not have children whose education they are influencing, but about this, I don't know how to approach an argument in one way or the other. I'm sure there are people out there with significant facts in both directions, but my knowledge is limited. Even what information I have provided I recognize is all looking at things somewhat "logically" only, therefore idealistically, and also with only the perspectives of my limited knowledge of how government affects marriage. Although I am aware of a number of perspectives and have tried and will try to consider them as I continue, I cannot possibly take into account the numerous perspectives and attitudes given the immensity of the voting public.

So, we've come to the point that it seems it is in government's best interest to maintain regulation over marriage and to promote it. But the question on the ballot is not this but rather how to define marriage. So, if the reasoning I have provided were sufficient and complete to the end of the government regulating marriage, looking at this information, which definition of marriage would be more beneficial to the government's scope of influence over marriage? That is, some of have said, as I indicated earlier, that this definition should rest within the realm of religious influence rather than the states. However, inasmuch as the government has jurisdiction over marriage, and all things over which government has influence must be defined, the argument of leaving this definition alone to religion is not possible.

So, the points that make marriage a benefit to government:
1. (within a government in which marriage is already governed) to avoid an outcry from the people whom it benefits.

2. to promote the education of its children/rising generation who will be its workers and leaders in later years.

How would the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman alone respond to number 1?
Since there has already been an outcry regarding this aspect of the definition, and the people have voted in several states, including the state in which the question has arisen, that marriage be defined as between a man and a woman, then it would stand in the government's best interest to follow the voice of the people.

How would the definition of marriage as being the union of two people regardless their gender respond to number 1?
Given that government has instituted benefits for marriage, those who are not able to participate in these benefits feel they are being unfairly treated and therefore they are crying out for change so they can participate in these benefits. The question then is, are these benefits rights of the governed people, or privileges? Do all people have a right to these benefits simply because they love another person? This leads to the reasons for the benefits being established, which, within my limited knowledge, seems to hinge more directly on number 2.

So, no. 2. How would the definition of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman alone respond to no. 2?
Studies would have to indicate that the marriage between a man and a woman significantly impacted their children's productivity and that the children of another union did not or even impacted the children negatively. Given the number of factors that contribute to such a study, this would be difficult.

How would the definition of marriage as being a union between two people of whatever gender respond to no. 2?
Studies would have to indicate that the children of such a union were negatively impacted being raised by parents of the same gender. The studies could not focus on single parenthood and therefore not of one gender or the other, but specifically of the raising of a child with two parental units of the same gender.

While the reasoning has led me in interesting directions, I have to say that even as I write about the idea of two parents of the same gender, I feel bothered enough to removes "logic" from the picture. But it does make me wonder about the definition of another word that seems to be involved in this equation: parent. BioLogically, the parents of any child consist of a man and a woman. No scientific experimentation has ever produced a child with the uniting reproductive cells of two men or of two women. Therefore, any meddling with this definition is artificial. Does the state have the right, then, to govern the definition of parent?

In some instances, it seems to have taken this within its jurisdiction--inasmuch as children or parents can be "disowned"--removed from financial obligations, and inasmuch as companies/agencies are allowed to give children to a single parent in an adoption circumstance. The very nature of giving a child up for adoption seems to indicate a legal removal of the title "parent" thereby leaving some children without parents of either gender. And I would not argue against adoption. It is good that some biological parents do not have legal rights to parent their children. So there is good reason for the state to have some say about this definition. But as far as defining what kind of parents a child can be given to, it seems natural laws would indicate a better circumstance consists in the unity of two people of opposite sexes parenting a child.

So, all of this also reminds me of a significant point I've left out--the constitution argument about people's right to the pursuit of happiness--the argument that seems to have led to this second time around of this vote on the California ballot. The point the judges made was that by denying marriage to homosexual couples, the state was discriminating against their right to the pursuit of happiness. So, the question is begged that the marriage between two homosexuals constitutes a step in the direction of their pursuing happiness. And yet, we have no factual data to indicate that the unnatural union of two people constitutes movement in the direction of happiness. With this, there would have to be studies to indicate a few things, actually--that homosexual people are actually happier when they are married than when they are not (which would be impossible given the illegality of this), and that they are happier being homosexual than pursuing a direction of trying to become heterosexual.

Of course proving that any activity contributes to the pursuit of happiness would be a rather difficult course to pursue, including many of the rights we enjoy. Perhaps, though, embedded in this statement in the constitution is the realization that sometimes the pursuit of happiness entails allowing people to pursue whatever they will, even if it leads to unhappiness, because from their unhappy course they are essentially learning how to find the happy course, which brings the whole thing full circle to indicate that any activity at all can constitute pursuit of happiness and the statement really means only that people need to be allowed their agency. And yet we know that absolute agency does not promote the happiness of everyone. For example, if murder were not illegal, because we had to allow the murdered their agency, few people would agree this promoted the pursuit of happiness sufficiently.

Therefore, the argument of allowing gay marriage with the reason of allowing pursuit of happiness would also have to indicate that the people whose lives their union would influence, such as children they would be permitted to adopt (including the other in a party in which one was the biological parent), were also permitted a greater chance at pursuing happiness than they would be if they were placed in homes with parents of both genders. And I don't think any study has indicated this. But again, we come full circle because we don't know what would constitute the pursuing of happiness for these children.

So, I'm not sure exactly what my logic has led to, but these last points do bring up another point that I had hoped to explore, that of agency as it relates to the Church's position on things. Because the Church promotes free agency--recognizing that this is one of the greatest gifts of God--in most cases, the Church would not support laws that took away from others' agency. In the Book of Mormon, in one of the stories, there's a passage that indicates there were no laws in the particular government at that time that could bind a man to believe in God, so although such a man was trying to influence others not to believe in God, the government could do nothing to restrain him. And because the laws were originally established by people who wanted to follow God, we are led to recognize that man's agency is of utmost importance, until it leads to terrible things, such as murder (which happened in this case I think).

So, if the Church is indeed in favor of this proposition, it must be because it will actually lead to the removal of agency. It seems hard to see this because it initially promotes agency, but on the blog that I read originally, one of the commentators actually indicated that indeed the passing of such definition of non-gender-defined marriage had impacted others rights to religious freedom and other rights of agency, with one example regarding adoption. I don't remember the specifics, but the person's logic and facts seemed to be sound, and it was also interesting that the person indicate he was himself gay and in favor of this proposition for those reasons.

Well, so there are my thoughts. I guess my conclusion has to rest on my own feelings because logic without sufficient information, which it seems there cannot even be given the nature of the issues, won't lead me to any conclusion. And so, although this isn't an issue on my current ballot, I have to say I still believe I voted well when it was on the ballot in Virginia a couple years ago. Best of luck to you in your thinking.

Choose Your Own Adventure

Yesterday I took a walk in my neighborhood. I've taken walks before, but I decided to find new paths, so I first took this path I found, from a small entrance on the side of the street into a little wooded area. I followed the path for awhile, but soon found the path seemed to have been covered over. I thought it might pick up again, especially since I thought it might connect to another path I'd been on before. I kept going, and indeed found evidences of a path. But eventually, the shrubbery came up to high and I had no choice but to turn around.

Back on the road, though a little further down the road from where I entered, I continued on my way. I hadn't been gone very long, after all.

Soon enough, I found the little wooded park (and I mean little) with the path I'd taken before. It forked right at the entrance. And since I knew, from taking it before, that going left led me quite a ways from home, I decided to take the path to the right and see how close it got me, also curious to see if it connected to the other wooded area.

They might have. But I didn't find out. A chain link fence ran along the middle of the woods on my left as I walked the whole way. And before long, another chain link fence came up on the right, separating the woods from people's yards and homes. That was fine. The pathed area got smaller. That was fine. But eventually, I got to a place where it looked like the fences merged. I kept walking though, maybe out of curiosity or maybe determination. Curiously, the fences didn't merge, and the path continued between them. The path was the whole width of the space between the fences, just a few feet, like a typical path, but it was enough. Kind of fun to explore, I thought. Kind of fun. As i continued, quite a few branches from trees hung over

But well, eventually, the path on the left folded over onto the fence on the right. I could have fit and crawled along the path below the folded over area. It didn't seem too long. But it looked as if the path narrowed significantly afterward. I stopped for a few minutes, wondering if I should try, if it was worth it. Finally I turned around and went all the way back.

But I don't regret going. It kind of felt like a Choose Your Own Adventure book I used to read when I was a kid. Of course I never gave up and stopped reading when I died: got bitten by a snake, sank in quick sand, poisoned by a comrade, or ran into a dead end. I just turned around and picked up where I left off. Perhaps, I thought as I was turning around yesterday, reading those books even gave me some courage to try new things for curiosity. If all else failed, I could just turn around and try something else.

Of course, sometimes I'm not courageous enough, but it's one example of good things books have done.

National Book Festival

I have a few things I want to blog about, including some tags/memes, but I promised my personal journal on Sunday when I didn't spend much with it that I'd blog about the book festival then copy and paste into it.

So! I've attended the national book festival for the past three years, but for the first time this year I had a friend to go with! Yeah! My temporary roommate Kim. I'm so glad she came with me, too. We had a great time.

We left our apartment around 10:30ish and arrived 11:15, early for the first speaker I wanted to see, Neil Gaiman, so we wandered around the Pavilion of States for a little while. This is one place where it was good to have a friend with me because in years past I've gone to every single state booth with lofty ambitions about seeing where great books were coming from, find great new titles, and uh, getting the freebies. My first year I went late enough in the day that I actually got a free book from Alabama? Toning the Sweep by Angela Johnson--a really good book, too, that I'd read a few years previously and liked. Actually, this year we got free books, too, between the Metro stop and the festival a few girls were handing out books, but I don't know the author. Nice catch, though. I'll never complain about free books! At the Pavilion of States, though no free books, I did get this fancy-schmancy bracelet from Colorado! My first ever of these popular plastic/rubber things and from my home state. Yeah!

And thanks to Kim for not getting us caught up in the states, we made it to Gaiman's talk on time. Not in time to get good seats, but I'm not sure we would even have had seats if we'd tried sitting down half an hour early, when we arrived at the festival. He had a packed audience. We were in the back, as evidenced in my shot. I tried doing a zoom, but I couldn't angle the camera well enough, so that result was only a dark spot of canvas. Oh well. I was there, I promise!

One of the blogs I follow described his performance pretty well, so I won't try to top her: Read Write Believe . I will say that I'm pretty intrigued by The Graveyard Book, though. And it seems everyone else in attendance was as well, because it was sold out at the book sales tent. Oh well. I need to curb my book spending anyway, and although it was nice for him to cut some red tape to get the book sold at the festival a few days before it's release, I probably wouldn't have read it in those two days anyway, and even if I do buy it, I'm sure I can get a better price than full anyway--thank you Borders for your many coupons, and Amazon for "used and new" independent sellers.

After Gaiman, we went over to see Doreen Kronin and Betsy Lewin, the collaborating team who produced the Click, Clack, Moo! series. But we arrived early and saw the last bit of David Shannon's presentation, author of No David! series. He was pretty funny. He drew a picture of David, explaining the reasoning for the shapes and attributes of all of his facial features. Jagged teeth because he doesn't brush and eats too much candy, triangle nose because it's been broken too many times, and a naughty eyebrow and an "I didn't mean to" eyebrow. Very clever. It was no surprise, seeing the real David, that the pictures were drawn of himself by himself when he was little. Definitely some resemblance.

So, we didn't have seats for Shannon, but hoped some people would clear out. No such luck. Only a small handful moved. We did sit though, insistent upon it after standing for the past hour or so, on the grass with the kiddies. Pretty good seat for me, got some good shots, but I guess some of the kiddos were a little too wiggly for Kim. Woops.

So about Kronin and Lewin--

Although they indicated they see each other once a year, their performance made it clear to me they weren't accustomed to working with each other. This didn't surprise me too much-- typically authors just send their manuscripts to the publisher and the publisher then to the illustrator and the author rarely has anything to say about the illustrations. But the odd thing about their show was that they seemed to be trying to work together, but they weren't. Kronin was taking the lead and seeming to forget that she had a partner, so Lewin would step in to remind the kids that illustrators were important too, and that just like they were all writers (as was the platform of many of the children's authors), they were also all illustrators.

I'm glad Lewin did step in to say this, though--it's very important for kids and everyone to realize all of their talents are worth developing. But as for the "everyone" thing, the jury is still out on this one. It came across a little trite to me, and while I would encourage all children and people to write, I'm not sure it's really doing them a service to tell them they are something if they really aren't. Will they live a life feeling like a failure because they just can't muster very good creative stories? Well, not too likely, but still, the fact that some people never will muster a very good creative story is evidence enough that the line is just a gimick. Come on. It's just bad rhetoric. But I guess in this world of bad rhetoric all over the political landscape, it's not surprising to find it in all fields. Okay, so there's my platform for you. They did a few things well, however. They involved the audience in helping to create afun story about a pig and a tiger. It was funny to hear the kids' responses.

After that, we were pretty ready for lunch, and well, hadn't though about planning in advance so got the over-priced mall food, a 3$ hot dog for me. Sheesh! And 6$ chicken and fries for Kim. Hers was a little more reasonable, and more filling, but I only had 4$ cash on me. She shared her fries. So nice.

The next speaker I wanted to see was good ol' Jon Scieszka, but he wasn't speaking until 2:45, so we had about an hour to kill. Fortunately, Doreen Rappaport and Kadir Nelson were slotted in that time frame and for about that long. And they were pretty good. Rappaport repeated that "everyone's a writer" thing, but otherwise, she did fine--lots of enthusiasm, and I loved how she explained all the research she did to find the story of Abraham Lincoln, showing how research and "homework" can be fun, which Nelson reiterated when he took the mike, making a nice unified presentation, though they hadn't apparently planned that. That is, curiously, unlike the previous author-illustrator duo, they made no pretense about working together. First she spoke, ending with her gratitude for a great illustrator to help tell the story, and then let him take over.

His part was really fun, too. He started off a little dry, telling about the research --dry sounding voice that is, but he actually did intrigue me about the research and homework needed for illustrating. Made me think more about that as a fun continuing-education job, that I would appreciate. But then he got fun, calling for volunteer children to come forward to be his models--one as the horse and one as Abraham Lincoln. The kid who played Abe made comments and corrections the whole time, telling him the head was too big, or Abe Lincoln didn't really look like that. It was pretty funny.

Then, finally, the highlight of the day! Jon Scieszka, recently chosen as the first ambassador of children's literature by the librarian of Congress. Sara also wrote about his: Read Write Believe . But I'll add that he also pushed his book about Trucks, still presenting himself as a versatile writer of many genres. And he was indeed, as funny in person as on the page. You'll have to go to the Library of Congress webcasts when they're up.