A pleasant surprise.
Utah has a somewhat less than positive reputation in the world at large. The perception is that the Mormon influence is so strong that the state is little more than a theocracy in disguise. The reality is, well, that the Mormon influence is so strong that the state is more or less a theocracy in disguise. Utah does have trouble attracting outside businesses to move into Utah simply because many people would rather quit their job and find something else than move to Utah. Even within the Mormon Church—excuse me, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints— there are members of the church outside Utah who would rather have bamboo splinters shoved under their finger nails than live in Utah and have to deal with "Utah Mormons." The irony is I was one of those who had no desire to live in Utah. I came here for school and planned on hightailing it out of here as soon as I graduated. I probably shouldn't have married a Utah girl then.
It was therefore a pleasant surprise to read that, unlike other conservative states in the South, Utah Episopalians voted to support Bishop Elect V. Gene Robinson by a margin so large that a precise hand count was unneccessary.
After almost 15 years of living in Utah, I have figured out a few things. For starters there are a lot of good people here. It seems that those who are not members of the church tend to be a lot more open minded than one would expect in general. The Episocpal action is a good example. Instead of tending toward the conservative, mirroring the overall temperament of the area, they are considerably more open and welcoming. And while "Utah Mormon" does describe a certain sterotype that without a doubt exists in Utah, there are a good many Mormons living in Utah who are not "Utah Mormons," who remain true to their faith without expecting that those who live around them to do the same to merit their friendship.
Utah is my home these days. The landscape here is truly amazing. I enjoy living with all four seasons. As for the politics, well, you get used to it I guess. You get used to social reform being an uphill battle. You just plan on it and work it into your plans. As for the people, you find the people whose company you enjoy and you ignore the rest.
There are no words.
There has been much in the news about the "partial-birth" abortion ban that is soon to be made law. I found myself wondering exactly what this procedure was that was causing such an uproar. Today I read a description. Appalled doesn't begin to cover it. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers—whose political motivations would presumably compel him to admit the contrary—has said the procedure is performed thousands of time each year and most often on healthy mothers and fetuses. (Yahoo! News)
At first I wondered how a mother could choose such a thing and thought of gruesome actions like making the mother view the corpse of her child to make sure she understood the consequences of her choice. Then I shifted to the doctor who would do such a thing. How could anyone of with any conscience perform such a gruesome and awful procedure? If no doctor would consent to perform the procedure, that would end the issue right there.
And then I calmed down.
Doctors likely opt to perform the procedure because if s/he doesn't, the woman will simply go somewhere else. If no licensed medical practitioner will perform the procedure, it wouldn't take long for some black market services to spring up and we're back to coat hangers and back alleys. While it is a decision I am glad I will never have to wrestle with, I'm sure the reasoning is something like this: "It is better to lose one life than to risk two."
And what about the mothers who opt for abortion that late in the game? From all that I have heard abortion is never an easy decision and I doubt there are many women who can be glib about getting an abortion. At this stage of the game is it very likely an act of desperation. What motivates these women to such drastic and dreadful actions? There will be much legal wrangling over this law in the next few years as each side struggles for a dogmatic toe hold to advance their position. Perhaps their efforts would be better spent finding out why a woman makes such a choice and working together to provide alternative solutions, since neither side really wants to see this kind of thing happen. Pro choice is not the same as pro abortion.
In the end it probably doesn't matter. The brutal truth very likely boils down to economics. It's much cheaper to perform an abortion than to hide a woman from an abusive boyfriend/husband/father. It's cheaper than supporting a single mother who will lose her only means of supporting her existing family if she has a baby, or one who simply doesn't have the financial resources to support another child. I am currently reading Uncle Tom's Cabin. One slave woman poisoned her two month old child rather than have him grow up a slave and suffer the abuses to which she had been subjected. I have to wonder if there aren't modern day analogies.
You can preach all day about responsibility and birth control and about the vices of extra-marital and pre-marital sex, but at this stage of the game that just doesn't matter anymore. The problem is here to stay. How are we going to deal with it?
Why Can’t We All Play Nice?
I don't know if it comes across in my blog or not, but I'm really a right-leaning moderate when it comes to politics. Yes, I do have a few issues where I tend lean a bit left, social equality issues and the like, but for the most part I tend to fall on the right side of issues. In fact, I tend to enjoy reading Ann Coulter, the Valkyrie of the Right. (Yes, Tony. Go ahead and whip out your wooden stake or garlic or whatever atheists keep handy to ward off evil.) I have issues with her latest column, however.
Much has been made of Rush Limbaugh's fall from grace. The media has enjoyed running him down like a pack of wolves on a weakened elk. Ann claims the reason for a conservative's skeletons falling from their closet being such big news is so that liberals can "engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!" and further that the reason they enjoy the cry of hypocrisy so much is they are immune from being accused of hypocrisy because they have no morals to begin with and thus have no standards to which they try and adhere.
Ann likes to hold up Bill Clinton as the epitome of liberal morals, which is about as fair as holding up Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swagart as examples of conservative morals. Taking one individual claiming they are representative of a large group is ridiculous. I'm sure there are plenty of "moral" liberals whose lives mirror their conservative counterpart more than either would like to believe.
Ann seeks to excuse Rush's dependance on illegal drugs because it began innocently taking pain medication for back surgery. Does she really think that drug addicts other than Rush simply decide, "You know, today I think I'll get hooked on heroin." There are probably a few who dabble in drugs as a form of recreation and get in over their heads. It's probably safe to say that most, however, are hiding from some kind of pain in their lives: a shitty home life, a demolished self-esteem, a grief they cannot bear, or back pain from surgery. The question I have is why, when Rush's prescription ran out, didn't he go to his doctor and say, "Doc, I'm still in pain?" Why did he choose to illegally acquire the drugs he was used to taking? I'm sure his doctor warned him of their addictive nature. And why did he wait until he was caught to do something about it? Again, his doctor could have been a useful resource to combat the problem very early on.
Rush has been quoted as saying, "I take full responsibility for my problem." He has also been quoted as saying,
...we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are
violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.
Well, Rush, does taking full responsibility for your actions include a trip up river? I doubt it, though he sounds eager enough to send everyone else on a short boat ride. Ann invokes Chappaquiddick and uses Kennedy as some kind of character foil to poor Rush. She also mentions Kennedy's escape from prosecution, though I'm not sure what it has to do with Rush. Rush isn't going to go up river for the same reason Kennedy didn't. He's a celebrity and he's loaded.
What irks liberals (and moderates) about the right is living with their condescension and the near constant volleys from their moral high ground. This in and of itself is an interesting attitude to have since He who they claim to emulate once said, "He who is without sin let him first cast a stone at her." The left would probably be less eager to tear down a conservative if they were not being constantly pelted by rocks from people living in glass houses. It's not that we don't have standards, it's just that we don't expect everyone else to live by them.
Hiding Behind Marriage
No one has ever accused Dubbya of being the sharpest tack in the box. So I suppose it is fitting, if upsetting, that he has signed a proclamation endorsing "Marriage Protection Week," a media blitz organized by the religious right to halt and even reverse the advances gay and lesbian American have made in recent months.
The longer this debate goes on the more confused I become. "Marriage is a sacred institution," the proclamation states, "and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society." Protection from what? Well, gays and lesbians getting married, obviously. What I still cannot understand is how allowing two men or two women to marry will destroy marriage and society. For one thing, there are already several religious communities, Episcopal and Unitarian to name a couple, who solemnize/bless gay couples in marriage or Holy Union or whatever terminology each community chooses to use. In other words, gays and lesbians are already getting married. Last I checked, California hasn't fallen into the sea. None of the Great Plagues of Egypt have cursed our land. Indeed America seems to be humming along just as before without even so much as a hiccup.
What lacks is the legal recognition of these unions. So some young gay couple has just gotten married and gets in a car accident on the way home from the honeymoon. One is severely injured. The other has only minor injuries. He or she who is less injured will not be allowed to visit his or her spouse in the ICU, or will be asked to leave when visiting hours are over. This protects marriage how? Isn't this exactly the sort of thing marriage is supposed to promote: mutual love, sacrifice and respect? If it were a straight couple, no one would dream of forbidding the young husband to be at the side of his wife. No one would begrudge him his tears. Nurses may eventually gently suggest that he go home and rest, but that would be all. But a young man feeling the same way about another young man is unconscionable.
The reality is this fight has nothing to do with marriage. It is all about fear. It is about older generations of Americans who grew up fearing homosexuals as perverts and deviants, as people lurking behind a bush in the park waiting to jump out and turn unsuspecting passers-by into a homosexual with a kiss like some kind of vampire. Gay relationships were only ever seen as only that which could be experienced in the back room of a bar. They were seen as living their lives in dark places filled with sex, drugs and alcohol. Historically this isn't far from wrong, since that is the only kind of relationship that was possible for most gay men.
Now, however, gay and lesbian Americans have had enough. We refuse to live our lives in the dark any longer. We want our love and our relationships acknowledged and given the respect they are due. We are tired of society telling us what we are and refuse to listen to their voices any longer. We choose instead to listen to our own inner voice telling us we want and deserve more. Society is still trying to tell us we are not allowed. They still want us living in dark places where they don't have to live with the fact that it is indeed possible, if uncommon, for a man to fall in love with a man, or a woman to love another woman. Of course they cannot come out and say "You faggots go back to the bars where you belong." Not in today's "compassionate" new world. So instead they hide behind marriage, pretending to some vaunted morality, using God as an excuse for their bigotry.
Dubbya's proclamation ends with the admonition to "continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect." Believe it or not this is probably the most offensive part of all. Do you honestly believe that telling a group of people that their love and their relationships are inferior and not worthy of government protection and benefits is treating them with dignity and respect? "You can be gay if you must, but just don't try to assume that you are in the same class as we are." In other words it's okay to be gay as long as you know your place. Interesting. Seems like I've heard that sentiment expressed somewhere before.
Heart breaking
My partner of 24 years suddenly died of heart problems about two months ago. He was only 51 and had no symptoms. My problem is that I'm lost without him. He is on my mind constantly. We had several mutual friends and I have been spending some time with them, but even they remind me of him. I am active in neighborhood activities, but the fun I enjoyed doing them is clouded. What can you suggest to help me get past this? I know I will always have my memories of him.
Lost
First, I'm so sorry for your loss, Lost. You have all my sympathy.
As for your problem, to be frank, Lost, what you're going through right now, while extremely painful, is not something I would think of as a problem that can -- or should -- be quickly solved. What you're feeling is perfectly normal and understandable. It's only been two months since your partner of 24 years died unexpectedly; I would be worried about you if you were "past this" already. At this stage, he should be on your mind constantly, and your enjoyment of activities you used to enjoy are understandably clouded by feelings of loss.
So the best way to get past this, in my opinion, is to embrace everything you're feeling. Let yourself feel the loss. If you can afford to, take a trip, go someplace you went together. Step out of your normal routines and let yourself grieve. You can't rush through those feelings; you've got to live through them. Don't cut yourself off from human contact -- get out there, even if you feel like your enjoyment of your usual activities is clouded, for the moment, by the pain you feel. In time, the clouds will lift.