In Memoriam: Astrid Lydia Stenersen Hall (November 17, 1907-July 11, 2009

Yesterday was quite eventful. I was busy from morning until evening between hiking with a colleague and visiting with a friend who had made a spontaneous trip from out of town. I was so busy that I missed a few phone calls. Having found the time in the evening to check the messages, I discovered the sad and happy news that my Grandmother passed away that afternoon. It is sad that I will not be able to visit with my grandmother more in this life. She was a great woman and I made sure to visit her in Salt Lake City as often as possible (over the past few years I would make a trip each winter and summer--fortunately, this past winter I made the trip and interviewed her both on voice recording and video). It is happy news in that my grandmother had lived a full and happy life--she was one-hundred-and-one-years-old. She had mentioned to me on previous visits that she was happy with her life and that she was ready to go to the next life whenever the Lord wanted to take her. This is quite understandable as all of her family and friends had previously passed away. All she had left was her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. It is nice having a knowledge of the plan of salvation--understanding that through the atonement of Jesus Christ all will live again, being resurrected, reuniting body and spirit, and that in the realm of spirits my grandmother would be in the presence of old friends and family. Also, that one day I, too, will be reunited with them all.
My grandmother meant a lot to me. Many of my friends falsely assume that I served a mission in Norway due to my interest in the language and the country. This is not the case. My interest in Norway comes from my grandmother. She was born in Kristiania, Norway (present day Oslo) and moved to the United States in her late teens. Hers was a busy and difficult lifestyle in Norway, with all her family working at the match factory and with her delivering newspapers to make a little extra money in order to save up to come to the United States. While she did not get to travel much in Norway (spending most of her time in Kristiania with an occasional trip to Kristiansand to visit relatives), she was able to find enjoyment in life and to make the most of her experiences. She marveled at how much of Norway and Sweden through which I have had opportunity to travel. She would often state that I know more of her homeland than she (which may be true as far as seeing the country, but she actually lived the culture, custom, and lifestyle which is an experience that I shall never have--she is truly Norwegian as I am simply an observer of Norway). As a child I enjoyed viewing all of the knick-knacks that she had around her house from Norway and Sweden (her husband was Swedish), and as I grew older I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity that I had to visit with her one on one and to learn of her life, her family history, and her views on the world. I am going to miss those conversations and will treasure the memories that I have of them.
In memory of my Grandmother I should like to include a few journal entries that I have recorded over the years that capture some of the knowledge, information, and experiences that I have had in connection with visiting her in Salt Lake (I will skip over some parts of journal entries when the information is either too private or does not relate to a connection with my grandmother):

AUGUST 30, 2001
. . . "After hiking the mountain we drove down to Mirror Lake and ate lunch. This is the lake my father would take us boys to go fishing when we were young and up visiting family in Utah. This is the same lake that my great-grandfather Stenersen would take his grandchildren camping (my uncle Einar and my father). Uncle Einar pointed out a lot of the landmarks that he remembers from those days. I even saw a small portion of the old dirt road that they would come in on--it is now covered with overbrush. Einar told me that my great-grandfather used to camp with another Norwegian friend of his his. This friend once pulled Einar aside during one of their camping trips and told him that his grandfather Stenersen is the only human being that he has ever known who he has not heard speak ill of anybody ever. Quite the compliment.
This evening the Hall family got together to have a Dinner. It as good to see everyone. Aunt Judy recently took a trip to Washington and found some Scandinavian shops there. She bought a Norwegian calendar and a cast-iron with which to make Kremkaker. She gave these two items to me.
After the dinner when everyone parted their several ways, I spent a couple of hours talking with my grandmother Hall. She related many events both in Norway and in the United States to me. The following are some of the brief highlights from the conversation:
Great-Grandfather Stenersen--(my grandmother's father)--He supported three families throughout the great depression. He worked on the theater building at the University of Utah (I forgot the name of the building) and constantly kept it in top shape--polishing the brass doors and all. He constatnly stressed the importance of being on time to things and instilled it in his family. He was a heavy smoker and would drink on occasion. He stayed at home while his wife and daughters would attend church in Norway. Eventually he began coming to church, sitting in the back pew. This trend continued in the United States. One evening he came home and told his wife, 'I've done something today that you will be pleased with--I met with the missionaries and got baptized.' Though he was a heavy smoker, he quit cold-turkey and never returned to the habit. His comment on quitting smoking (or anything for that matter): 'You don't wean yourself off of it, you quit. If you make a decision you follow through with it fully committed.' Of course, these aren't his exact words but the general idea. When he died the University of Utah flew its flags half-mast in his honor.
Great-Grandma Stenersen--(my grandmother's mother)--She grew up in Norway and boarded with a family in Oslo (a Lutheran family). She attended church services with the Salvation Army and one day the family that she boarded with said, 'You attend the Salvation Army services. . . you had ought to go to one of the Mormon services and see what they are all about.' She did so and after attending the first meeting she knew that it was the true church of Jesus Christ. She joined the church and immediately began saving money to come to Utah, for she wanted the blessings of the temple in her life. She worked hard and disciplined the children (her husband never raised his voice or uttered a cross word at his daughters--he always turned that over to their mother). When my grandmother married, great-grandma took her aside and explained what was expected of a good housewife and why that was the case. My grandmother treated my grandfather like a king ever since that day. When they were living back in Norway, she was very frugal, yet she made sure that her daughters were the best dressed girls at church.
Judith Stenersen--(my grandmother's sister)--She grew up at home while my grandmother grew up at her grandparents. Their grandparents did not live far away and they all saw each other daily. Judith was out cross-country skiing with a friend once (as they often went skiing) when the two young girls discovered they were lost. Judith's friend said that Judith should pray. She did and a short time later a man appeared and gave them directions as to how to return to their home. After the man had gone they noticed that he had left no tracks in the snow. They arrived home safely.
Returning to my great-grandmother Stenersen--Norway is predominantly Lutheran in their faith. All of my great-grandmother's neighbors were such and they all greatly respected her and her family (especially the religion she was associated with). They used to say, 'The Mormon family can do no wrong.' Once their was a great flu epidemic which passed through the community wherein many people died. The whole community feared contracting the ailment and were fearful of preparing the dead for burial. They asked my great-grandmother to do the job, saying, 'You are a Mormon--you will not get sick.' My great-grandmother washed and prepared the bodies for burial and sure enough, she never contracted the ailment. Such was the respect for the Stenersen family and their religion.
There is so much more to write which I learned from my conversation with my grandmother this evening, but it is late and I am extremely tired. I hope that I will remember the others and find the time to write them down in this journal."

SEPTEMBER 2, 2001
"I attended sacrament meeting with my grandmother and was impressed with the testimonies which were shared. Most of all I appreciated the background noise of children. I observed many children today and was humored by their innocence and joy. The children are so cute and precious, it makes me look forward to having a family of my own. I was also impressed with the elderly individuals in the ward. The service simply had a feeling of being complete. I enjoy the young single adult ward which I attend back home and I truly feel the spirit there, but it does lack that feeling of being complete--of including the whole spectrum of the human experience. It has really made me want to move on with my progression in life and being my own family.
My grandmother cooked a nice Sunday dinner which I really enjoyed. She says it is the first time she has cooked on Sunday since grandpa died. She and Gladys have treated me like a king and have my stay both comfortable and enjoyable. I am indebted to their kindness and love. . ."

APRIL 14, 2002
"I drove from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City yesterday, arriving sometime after nine o'clock in the evening, local time. I was amazingly exhausted, yet made a few phone calls before chatting a bit with my grandmother and aunt Gladys. I then descended to the quaint room in the basement which I love so much--it has a fascinating character all its own which seems to transport me to another time and place. I feel at home with wood paneled walls and the old photographs, ceramic and copper artifacts (many of which are from the old homeland) and the books whose mysterious pages beckon to me. The foreign words I trip my tongue over like a small boy pretending to read and to comprehend. I spent a short time perusing through these articles, reminiscing and longing for that which haunts me with its ever elusive nature. I quickly read my scriptures and offered up a prayer to my Father (who, might I add, has been extremely patient and long-suffering with me) and straightway climbed into that most inviting bed.
I attended church with grandma and Gladys. I laughed inwardly as the words of many speakers from my home stake who have visited the Claremont 3rd ward resounded in my mind: 'It is so quiet here--I love the sound of silence and the reverence associated with it that is found in a young single adult ward such as this.' I laughed inwardly, for I felt exactly the opposite as I sat in the midst of this family ward, with all the sounds of babies crying children talking, parents shushing, and elderly people coughing. yes, it is so noisy here--I love the sound of noise which represents the whole human family, the whole spectrum of mortality, the whole of human experience. It was truly a joy to my ears and to my heart. . .

APRIL 15, 2002
"I arose this morning with the hopes of going for a ride on my mountain bike through the majesty of Utah's nature; however, Utah's nature had something else in mind. Ominous clouds blanketed the sky and rough winds raged through the valley so I opted not to go biking. Instead, I spent the morning conversing with my grandmother. She did most of the talking and I did most of the listening, which is just the way I like it. I already know my thoughts and am far more interested in what other people have to say--especially my grandmother with her ninety-four years of experience. I learn a lot listening to her--not only of family history but concerning life in general.
I went downtown for a couple of hours this afternoon and did some shopping at the mall. I purchased a new cd-tape convertor for the car to play my walkman on, some new shoes for formal occasions and a few reading books for young shcool children in Norwegian titled, 'Lesaboka for Grunnskolen.' One day I will learn Norwegian and what better place to start than with children's literature. I've already skimmed through them and am able to comprehend the gist of a few of the poems and stories, but for the most part my understanding is lacking.
I returned to my grandmother's house and descended into my basement room where I began grading some of my students' papers. After an hour of so doing I became restless with the thought of such a perfectly good storm raging outside while I sat comfortably indoors. I was reminded of this as the wind suddenly blew open one of the windows in my basement room and went howling about the contours of my surroundings. Startled, i arose and closed the window tightly. I then grabbed my jacket, ascended the stairs and took leave of the house so that I might enjoy the mighty winds. I climbed atop the old chicken coupe and faced the wind allowing it to slash all about me. It was wonderful at first, but so much dust had been kicked up by the winds that its sediments lodged within my eyes. I had to turn my back to the wind for this purpose. The sky was black with dust and the mountain peaks which stand so close to my grandmother's house were not at all visible. I could see small speckles of sediment falling like raindrops from the sky, The trees whipped wildly about, thrashing their arms through the air and wires wobbled like angry jump-ropes bent on snapping a child. I could feel parts of the old coupe rumble from under me and many times the gusts knocked me off of balance. there I stood, then sat for some twenty minutes. No rain. It would have been better had there been rain--less dust and dirt to be reckoned with and more of nature. . .
I then went to dinner with grandma, Gladys, Judy, Erin, Danny, and Danny's friend. It was an enjoyable meal at the Olive Garden and an interesting group to interact with and to observe. It began to rain at this point, starting with mud droplets which plastered my coat. Finally, regular rain came down, the winds subsided and the temperature dropped.
I spent the evening watching an old black and white film with grandma and gladys, I was strewn comfortably across the couch, After the film I called Sanna and we arranged to go to dinner tomorrow night at 6 p.m. despite her busy schedule and finals."

AUGUST 23, 2007
". . . Sunday was a day full of visiting and fostering relationships. I spent time visiting with my grandmother and aunt Gladys, Ardis Penrod and his family, the Stirlings, and Valarie and her husband. That evening I went for a walk through various neighborhoods. Upon my return I climbed up on top of the chicken coupe and enjoyed a strong, warm breeze, the view of the stars and clouds, and the sounds of cars, crickets, and the wind. I spent a good half an hour simply discovering shapes in the clouds. Among other things I saw a troll, dragon, dinosaur (which was wearing a party hat and eating stars), and alligator, alien, dog, lizard, skull, man, shark, dolphin, and a sea-horse. I am easily entertained.
I shall like to shift my subject from what I did during my trip to what I had learned. What I had learned falls into two categories: first, what I have learned through discussions and observations, and second, what I have learned through my own thoughts. I shall begin with the most important discussions that I had had--those with my grandmother, Astrid Hall.
My discussion with my grandmother focused primarily upon life in Norway and gradually spilled over into life in America. I learned that my great-grandparents and their peers enjoyed going for walks through the forests and would take buckets and scoops along with them, whereby they would scoop up wild blueberries and bring buckets full home. The kids would then separate the blueberries from the leaves in the buckets and the families would make jam. I also learned that my great-grandfather loved to go for solitary walks in the forest before church. Additionally, it was customary for young adults to go for walks as dates, I found all of this quite fascinating and rather revealing of my own character. I love solitary hikes through nature, long walks through the city, and my favorite thing to do on dates is to walk and talk with my date (whether it is through a park, by shops, or at a museum--it is the walking and talking that fascinates me the most). I suppose it is simply in my genetic make-up to be predisposed to such activities. I also learned about the first time my great-grandmother Stenersen saw a car. Apparently it came speeding around a corner and my great-grandmother was in the middle of the street. Amazed at the sight of such a thing, she did not know what to do. The driver of the car noticing her confusion yelled out, 'Stand still' and simply swerved around her. I also learned of some great advice on healthy living from my great-grandfather Stenersen which I really need to learn to apply. So as to avoid overeating, his motto was 'Stop eating when the food tastes the best.' I had also learned that my grandmother had a strict upbringing and that she and her sister loved it when their mom was away and dad alone was left to watch them. At such times he would lighten up and play with the girls. My grandmother's fondest such memory was of how he would make the girls laugh by impersonating Charlie Chaplin.
Once in the United States my grandmother found work as a maid for one Mrs. Reynolds who my grandmother greatly respects and admires. Mrs. Reynolds was very kind to my grandmother and taught her what true equality means as she stated, 'If you earn your money honestly you are as good a person as anyone else.' As Mrs. Reynolds was wealthy, she thought herself no better than my grandmother who worked hard for an honest living. My grandmother (Norwegian) met my grandfather (Swedish) at a dance that was a part of a Scandinavian conference for the church. They were introduced at the dance by a mutual friend and began their courtship shortly thereafter. They dated one another for about a year, at which time my grandmother grew impatient with his having not proposed marriage, so she tole him, 'Either you marry me or I am going to move to New York with some of my friends' (they were living in Utah at the time). My grandfather thought about it briefly, then retrieving a wad of money he had been saving, handed my grandmother the money and told her to go buy a ring. . . "

BESTAMOR, JEG ELSKER DEG!!!

Final Posting on Same-Sex Marriage in California

As we are all aware, Proposition 8 has passed in the state of California, adding to the state constitution that marriage will be recognized between a man and a woman. Sadly, gay and lesbian activists have already begun to challenge the people's will in the courts. . . again. Obviously, these activists have an issue with democracy and wish to force their will upon the masses through the improper use of the courts. It is the court's duty to interpret existing laws, not to create them. Needless to say, this will be my last post upon the issue. . . at least until the courts force it to become a public issue again and I am called upon to defend traditional marriage. I shall end where I began, simply by posting my original blog concerning the matter which I wrote last spring after discovering the courts had over-stepped their bounds and created law rather than interpret it. Here is the blog in its entirety:

Bigotry (noun)--Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH AND DEMOCRACY

It will not surprise me if some will label me a bigot because of my belief in the traditional values of the marriage covenant. It will not be the first time; after-all, I was labeled such back in 2000 due to my support of California's Proposition 22, which added to the state constitution the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The irony with those who point the finger and cry "bigot" is, according to the definition of bigotry, they are bigots themselves--intolerant of someone who simply has a differing opinion. In 2000 I was a Junior at Cal Poly Pomona, majoring in English Literature. I wrote an article in defense of marriage, supporting Proposition 22, which was published in the school newspaper. Following its publication, I attended my Spanish class, and as the professor took roll, she came to my name and said, "Brett Hall--are you the Brett Hall that wrote that article in the paper?"

"Yes," I replied.

"Shame on you!" my professor scowled as she pointed an accusatory finger.

Some students on the campus went about making signs that essentially stated anyone who was in favor of Proposition 22 was a bigot, and other articles arose in the school press denouncing my position. So be it. We live in a country that values freedom of speech, and I have no problem with people freely expressing their opinions in opposition to my own, even if I am falsely accused of being a bigot.

Needless to say, Proposition 22 was voted upon by the citizens of California and it passed with overwhelming support. The people of the great state of California had spoken, and marriage was officially declared to be strictly between a man and a woman.

So, one might imagine my surprise when on the news yesterday I learned that special interest groups within the state of California have brought the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage to the California Supreme court. There are a minority of citizens within the state that feel differently about the issue than what the majority has legally added to the state constitution. I have no problem with these individuals and groups expressing their opinions, that is their right. What I do take issue with is their attempts to override the fundamental principals of democracy by imposing their ideology upon the majority by changing the laws through the courts. This is a dangerous move that should concern every citizen, regardless of one's position on the issue of same-sex marriage. If judges are allowed to create laws, rather than to interpret and enforce laws (which is their true role and authority), then we create a society for ourselves that is governed by the elite rather than by the people. If the courts create and impose law, what then is the role of democracy? What then is the value of the peoples' votes? Who then is left to stop judges from implementing additional laws that run contrary to the will of the people? Is such action far different from fascist, communist, or dictatorial rule--the ceding of power from the people to an elite group of individuals who in turn decide what is and what is not best for the people? This is a scary development which potentially could lead to the downfall of American Government as we know it.

Aside from the issue of government, what I wish to address is the defense of the traditional values of marriage. I wish to be clear that I have no animosity towards gays or lesbians. I respect all human-beings, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, or sexuality. I honestly believe that everyone is a child of God and that God loves every person. It is my aim in life to become like God; therefore, it is a logical conclusion that I should not hate anyone. As such, I plead with my readers to not misinterpret my position or intention on this issue. I sincerely believe that it is possible to be in disagreement with someone without harboring ill will or feelings towards the person. So it is with my defense of the traditional values of marriage.

THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE

To understand the defense of traditional marriage, we must first explore the history and purpose of marriage. Marriage is a seemingly universal rite. It is not unique to a single, or even a few, cultures. The rite of marriage springs from various cultural religious ceremonies. The concept of civil marriage followed the example of religious marriage. The question becomes, what is the purpose of marriage? The answer may vary dependent upon culture, but being that our roots are Judeo-Christian, we shall explore the fundamental purpose accordingly.

The Religious Argument

If one were to ask the average citizen what is the purpose of marriage, I imagine that the response would be something to the effect of, "to manifest one's love for another individual." While this statement may be one modern reason for marriage, it certainly was not the fundamental purpose traditionally. The real purpose of marriage is three-fold: (1) to provide a fundamental unit (the family) through which couples may pro-create, offering children a stable environment from which to be reared, (2) to uphold chastity according to the Law of God, (3) for a man and woman to enter into a covenant with one another to love, support, and cherish one another, whereby they may work together in the process of perfecting one another in the pursuit to become like one's Heavenly Parents. The concept of civil marriage followed suit, focusing less upon the laws of God and the religious pursuits associated with marriage, yet still upholding the purpose of providing the stable environment in which children could be reared and husband and wife may experience true fidelity.

Hence, the fundamental problem with same-sex marriage is that it does not meet the criteria for any of these purposes. First, same-sex couples do not have the power to pro-create. Second, the same-sex couples are clearly in defiance of God's stated laws regarding sexuality (that sex is justified only between a man and a woman who are married together--this does not mean that God loves these individuals any less; rather, it manifests his love for them by allowing them to choose for themselves--God does not force anyone to follow his laws, but he provides his laws as a guide on how to become like Him). Third, same-sex couples fundamentally cannot emulate their Heavenly Parents.

One key argument that might be made by some same-sex couples is that they do not believe in the traditional concept of God and His laws; hence, such laws are not applicable to them and their relationships. If such is true, why then do they feel compelled to be married (marriage being a law of God)? Why would they desire to be a part of a tradition (or law) in which they fundamentally do not believe? From a religious standpoint, it is clear that homosexuality is opposed to the teachings of the Judeo-Christian religions. Marriage, according to this tradition, stems from Adam and Eve, with the first and great commandment to multiply and replenish the earth (in other words, to have babies and rear children in order to populate the earth). Homosexuality runs contrary to this commandment, thus defeating the primary purpose of marriage. The second purpose of marriage, to preserve chastity according to the law of God, would also be defeated through same-sex couples. If chastity is defined as having no sexual relations with anyone other than his or her husband or wife of the opposite sex, then homosexuality is unchaste, just as fornication is unchaste and contrary to the will of God. Simply masking this behavior under the banner of "marriage" is not going to suddenly make homosexuality any more chaste according to the law of God. On the contrary, it mocks the law of God just as "common-law-marriage" mocks true marriage (the law of God). Same-sex marriage would be a marriage in name only, lacking the substance of true marriage according to Judeo-Christian principles and doctrines. Hence, from a religious perspective, same-sex marriage is fundamentally wrong.

What then of those who believe that they are homosexual by birth--the argument that "this is the way God made me"? Well, this is certainly a debatable point. But let us imagine that this argument is true--that there is a natural disposition that is beyond one's control. Could not others make the same argument? Pedophiles could make the same claim, yet we do not justify their actions. Serial killers could make the same claim, yet we do not justify their actions. And the list could continue on and on, yet we require such to curb such "natures." Of course, this is an unfair argument on my part. Killers and pedophiles pray on innocent victims whereas homosexuality is a behavior of consent. I do not wish to classify homosexuals with pedophiles and murderers. However, the point is that "being born this way" does not always justify one's actions. It certainly does not justify the need for same-sex marriage.

I am not here to debate the nature vs. nurture argument. The truth be known, I believe that some people are born, by nature, homosexual while a greater number become homosexual by nurture (which explains the explosion in the numbers of gays and lesbians, particularly among people who claim to be bisexual). For example, I have an acquaintance who is gay who says that he has always been attracted to other men. He doesn't want to be gay, but he is. This is an example of nature, yet he has made a conscious choice not to practice his homosexuality. Since he is not attracted to women he simply chooses to be celibate. This is a tough choice, no doubt, yet it is his choice, despite his nature. I'm not saying that all homosexuals should choose to be celibate. People may live as they choose--that is the agency that God has given to each of us. I may not agree with the practice of homosexuality, but I am not going to treat an individual unfairly as a result. In my view, God does not approve of the practice of homosexuality, but He still loves the individual, and therefore it is my obligation to love and care for the rights of the individual. Yet, this does not justify changing the traditional practice of marriage as being between a man and a woman. No rights are being violated in upholding this practice.

The Evolutionary Argument

Of course, there are many who will reject the religious argument and steep their beliefs in nature and the scientific theory of evolution. Such may dismiss God and Adam and Eve and place their beliefs and trust in evolution and the learning of man. I have heard some point out that through the observance of the natural world we may view other species involved in homosexual activity. They use this point to argue that homosexuality is natural, and thus justified. Let us say that we concede this point for arguments sake. Could we not make the counter-argument that other species do not marry? Could we not also argue that other species have multiple partners or different partners dependent upon the season? If we use this nature argument, could we not also justify the killing of our own children (after-all, have we not observed some species of animals to do just that)? Can we not also justify incestuous, polygamous, and other untoward practices that are observed in the animal kingdom? Can we not also justify the abandoning of orphaned children through the example of the natural world? It is obvious that this argument does not hold up against scrutiny. Of course, this is a neophyte argument. Let us look at something more advanced within the nature argument.

A more sophisticated argument might be made by some same-sex couples that they are homosexual by nature (not the same nature referred to above that deals with the lesser animal kingdoms, but born with the natural disposition to be gay--in other words, they cannot help but feel the way that they do. They are by nature gay but also by nature more advanced than other mammals). The validity of this argument has been, and continues to be, debated, yet I will concede this point for arguments sake. Let us say that homosexuality is natural. Does this alone justify same-sex marriage? After-all, if it is natural, and we are so advanced, why would one want to submit to a man-made institution such as marriage? If we are merely advanced mammals in the evolutionary chain, would it not make more sense to follow the natural course of mammals--namely, the reproduction of the species without the institution of marriage? What reason then to bind ourselves to such an institution? This would be counter-productive to the freedom that we have by nature. Ah, but we are more advanced than other mammals and marriage is a sign of our advancement, one might say. So be it. But if we are so advanced, why have an institution without a purpose? What then, by nature, is the purpose of marriage? Would it not be to provide the best possible means by which to rear children in order to offer them the best chance at success in life? Is it not true that children fair better when they are reared in a two-parent home. So, even by nature, marriage becomes important, but really it is only important as it relates to family life. By nature, same-sex partners cannot have offspring. If nature wanted it so, would human-beings not have evolved in order to do so? Hence, even the argument by nature does not justify same-sex marriages. By nature, marriage fulfills the needs of heterosexual couples with the ability to reproduce. It does not fulfill any such need in same-sex couples.

The Social Argument

What about same-sex marriage as a social issue? Is it possible to make the argument that we are denying one's civil liberties by denying them the right to marry? The problem with this argument is that maintaining the traditional definition and practice of marriage does not impede one's civil liberties. Will entering into a marriage covenant make a homosexual any more free than what he or she already is? There really are no rights or privileges that would be advanced for homosexuals through the legalization of same-sex marriages. There are already laws in place that protect homosexuals from prejudice. Some may argue that offering same-sex couples the opportunity to be married would provide a perception of "normalcy" rather than "other" within society. Yet if we buy into this argument are we not admitting that homosexuality is something other than normal? And if it is something other than normal, why then should it pretend to be normal (that would be fundamentally deceptive)? And if we already view it as being normal than why the need to cloak it in marriage (that would fundamentally be a sign of insecurity)? Homosexuality is what it is--it doesn't need to pretend to be something that it is not. It does not need to pretend to be a part of a tradition whose roots are religiously based and whose practices have been fundamentally opposed to the nature of homosexuality for thousands of years. It does not need to go against what the majority of Americans define as the true definition and practice of marriage--a covenant between a man and a woman. Besides, cloaking homosexual relationships within the title of marriage will not truly change people's perceptions of it. Those who are biased will remain biased and those who are accepting will remain accepting.

The Economic Argument

What about the economic impact of marriage--are same-sex couples being financially discriminated against? There are already laws in place that prohibit such discrimination and having same-sex couples marry will not resolve any such issues that may still remain. The one exception might be tax deductions, but such deductions are designed to alleviate the burden of families with children (children obviously not having the means to care for themselves). Homosexual couples who are old enough to marry are also old enough to care for themselves. By nature, they cannot have children of their own, so they have no true dependents, whereas heterosexual couples have an added expense with children who cannot contribute financially to the family. Another argument might be concerning insurance coverage. Once more, medical, dental, vision, and etc, may be, but is not always, extended to spouses and children. Homosexual couples may not be able to claim one another on such coverage through their employers, but then again, what is keeping a homosexual partner from working and obtaining coverage for himself or herself? In a heterosexual relationship, a spouse may forgo full-time employment in order to rear the children, and as we have established children cannot work, so it makes sense that such coverage would be extended in behalf of a spouse and children. Even if one feels that homosexuals are not being treated fairly on these two issues, attempting to become equal through the redefining of marriage is an awful way to address the issue. Why change a tradition that has been in existence for thousands of years simply to promote monetary gain? There are other ways and means; the people may promote such issues without changing the traditional institution of marriage.

The Concluding Argument

As we see, there is no solid reasoning as to why a tradition that has been in practice for thousands of years and is rooted in religious purpose should have to extend itself into accepting a practice that it fundamentally opposes. There is no logic behind the adoption of same-sex marriage. The only argument that exists for adopting the practice would be "we want to be a part of it too." And the reasoning for this argument: "marriage is an expression of love and devotion to one another." I concede this point, but it alone does not justify same-sex marriage. Think on it. While it offers a couple a means to express love and devotion, such couples cannot fulfill the other purposes of marriage--namely, to reproduce, to preserve chastity, and to provide a nurturing atmosphere in which children may be reared by a mother and father. If all that is left is the argument that marriage should be extended to one who wishes to express one's love and devotion--if this were the sole-requirement, then what of individuals who love their pets and are devoted to them? What of polygamists? What of incest? Could not all of these claim the same right to marriage? Marriage must be and is something more, and it is our responsibility to defend it without being hateful, prideful, or disingenuous towards those who do not understand its true purpose and sanctity.

Vice is a monster of such frightful mein,

As to be hated, needs but to be seen;

Yet seen to oft, familiar with her face,

we first endure, then pity, then embrace.

--Alexander Pope (from "Essay on Man")

Fundamentally Changing Society--The Prop 8 Debate

Same-sex marriage will fundamentally alter society whether you believe it or not. This is why it is such a charged issue in California's current political season, wherein we find the masses passionately supporting both "YES" and "NO" on California Proposition 8. Proposition 8 will officially define marriage in the state of California as being between a man and a woman. It is important that each individual consider the immediate issue as well as the ramifications of the issue, being well informed, before voting on this proposition. A "YES" vote will preserve marriage as it has always been and how it should always be--between a man and a woman. A "NO" vote will change marriage, open the door to further changes and will fundamentally and adversely change society. Ultimately, it comes down to what you personally believe marriage to be. You will obviously vote accordingly. But let us explore how society will be changed if same-sex marriage passes in California.

1. By redefining marriage we are bringing into conflict religious beliefs with religious practices. Those who promote same-sex marriage say that religion will not be affected. This is wrong. Apparently, they believe that religion is a sunday activity within the walls of a church and not a way of life. In essence, they are attempting to impose gay and lesbian rights on society while shoving religious rights into the closet. You may worship in private, but do not live your religion. And those who live their religion--they will be deemed discriminatory and will be sued for their opposition to the law. We will be forced to practice what we morally oppose or be fined, fired, incarcerated, or persecuted in other manners. Let me offer a few examples of how this will play out from actual cases that have already occurred:

a. Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

b. Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

c. Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

d. Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

e. Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

f. Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

All of these cases are truly unnecessary. These gay and lesbian individuals could have easily found an adoption agency that would allow adoptions by same-sex couples--instead, they sue and drive people of faith out of business. The parents of the lesbian girls obviously knew the rules and standards of a religious school, yet they sue when they break those rules (they could have easily enrolled their daughters in another school where it would not be an issue. Instead, they wish to impose their own beliefs over that of religious beliefs). The lesbian who wanted to receive in vitro fertilization was referred to a doctor who would be happy to perform the procedure, yet she chose to sue the doctor who made the referral because he would not compromise on his religious beliefs. And the list goes on and on. If we could trust people to be civil and understanding (dare I say TOLERANT) of people's religious beliefs, this would not be an issue. But because there are some within the gay and lesbian community that wish to impose their beliefs on others, same-sex marriage will take away the rights of individuals to live their lives according to their religious beliefs. You may view the article from which these cases are documented here.

2. Same-sex marriage will be taught in public schools. This has already happened in Massachusetts. The opposition to Prop 8 claim that what happened in Massachusetts will not happen in California. They are wrong. It is already happening as is exemplified with a school class taking a field-trip to a same-sex wedding. Also, with kindergarten classes being exposed to "Gay Appreciation." Another article on the matter may be read here. And you may wish to read through some of the California State Content Standards that require the teaching of families in 1st, 3rd, and 5th grade, which will undoubtedly lead to teaching same-sex marriage in public schools (you will have to download the document from this site--see my previous blog for the specific standards). The teaching of same-sex marriages will take away the rights of parents who oppose the teaching of their children concerning this practice.

3. The family is the most basic unit within society. By allowing same-sex marriages we are changing the very pillars of society. Marriage should be reserved for the promotion of the optimal or ideal family, which will offer children the best opportunity for success and happiness. Opponents of traditional marriage between a man and a woman use this article to support their position that children in same-sex families are not adversely affected. However, they fail to recognize this one key fact from the article--the comparison in the studies is to single mothers, not families with a mother and father. The article states: "Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress." The optimal conditions for children is a family with a mother and a father. Same-sex marriage fundamentally changes that condition.


4. All those who oppose the practice of same-sex marriage will be demonized both in public schools and in society at large. They will be labeled bigots, intolerant, discriminatory, hate mongers, and plenty of other choice words. This will lead to further abuses within society. This will cause great confusion for children who are being taught religious principles by parents on the one hand and then are being taught in schools and by government (Diane Feinstein has already labeled us such) and society that their parents are ignorant, bigoted, Intolerant, and etc. Furthermore, the latest ads by opponents to Prop 8 presents the concept that those who support traditional marriage and the traditional family--father, mother, children--and who have not done anything ever in their lives to downtrodden gays and lesbians (truly tolerant people who simply disagree with some on how marriage should be defined), are the moral equivalent of racists and xenophobes. It exemplifies the fact that if you have a differing opinion on an issue, that opinion is not valid--you MUST think as they do or you are an intolerant bigot. Is this not the epitome of intolerance? It is quite hypocritical for opponents of Prop 8 to claim that they are for tolerance and fundamental rights when they are blatantly intolerant of digressing opinion and freedom of speech.

5. By redefining marriage to accept same-sex couples we are setting a dangerous precedent. The argument is that people love each other and we do not have the right to deny people of their love for one another. Supposedly, this is a fundamental right--if one loves someone, they should be allowed to marry that someone. As of now it will be same-sex couples. But what will happen a few years down the road when other groups with varying sexual preferences want their "fundamental right" of marriage? Do not those who practice or wish to practice polygamy have the same exact argument for marriage? They love. Is it their "fundamental right" to marry whom they choose? What about incestuous relationships? They love. Is it their "fundamental right" to marry whom they choose? What about people who practice bestiality? They love. Is it their "fundamental right" to marry what they choose? What about teenagers? They love. Is it their "fundamental right" to marry when they choose? And, of course, if we lower the age of marriages so as to not deny the fundamental rights of those who by nature are able to conceive, then what of more wicked and perverse groups such as NAMBLA. Will they not push for their "fundamental right" for dirty old men to marry young boys? Obviously, those who support same-sex marriage do not support polygamy, incest, bestiality, the lowering of the marriage age, or NAMBLA. But what they are doing by changing the definition of marriage is opening the door for all of these groups. The very logic which they are approaching the redefinition of marriage is the very logic that each of these groups will use in return. And those who claim at this time that it is discriminatory, immoral, unfair, and wrong to deny these supposed "fundamental rights" to same-sex couples, will be labeled the exact same thing when they in turn oppose these other groups. If we are considered to be prejudiced by opposing same-sex marriage, how would we not also be labeled as being prejudiced in opposing these other groups? If we are counseled to not be judgmental of others sexual preference, wouldn't that also mean that we should not be judgmental of all of these fringe groups? Can they not also make the argument that they are born that way, that they love, and that it is their "fundamental right" to be recognized by society as being nothing different than a mother and father in a marriage relationship? This is a slippery slope on which we stand. It would change the entire moral fabric and principle on which this nation was founded and will ultimately lead to the destruction of society as we know it.

6. Our ideals and values on sexuality will fundamentally change. Hollywood and various forms of media are already bombarding America with sexual messages, both heterosexual and homosexual. In my opinion, neither is appropriate for public consumption (I mean with easy access to children--one just has to flip on the television to be bombarded with sexual messages). Passing same-sex marriage emboldens this position. It will become wrong to make judgments concerning sexuality which will ultimately lead to the legalization of more perverse practices. This can easily be seen by looking at the Scandinavian countries where same-sex marriage has essentially been in existence for the past decade. The idea of being non-judgmental concerning sexuality has led to the legalization and popularity of such things as animal bordellos, as is evidenced by this article. and has led to an increase in divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and etc. This repercussions of which are not limited to the individual, but have an effect on society as a whole.


7. Same-sex marriage will entirely alter the way Americans view sexuality. Advertisers for wedding rings, wedding dresses, wedding suits, or anything at all dealing with weddings will have to promote same-sex marriage through its advertising. Once more, people who believe in the sacredness of marriage as being between a man and a woman will have this ideology working its way into our homes and will cause a conflict of interest as families attempt to teach their children their own values while society is promoting a contradictory perspective.

8. Marriage will lose its sacredness and meaning. Whether you would like to admit it or not, marriage is a religious issue. It began as a religious ordinance and it is ordained of God. Same-sex marriage will entirely sever the original origin and purpose of marriage from what it will become. The way Americans view marriage will change and its traditional purposes of maintaining chastity, promoting procreation, providing an ideal environment for rearing children, and our pursuits of patterning our lives and families after that of our Heavenly Parents will be undermined. People will view it as nothing more than a profession of love, and realizing that they may profess that love without marriage, the institution of marriage will become an unnecessary ritual in the mindset of many.

9. Same-sex marriage will set the precedent of seeking redresses with government by attacking institutions rather than seeking to change government. Many gays and lesbians feel that the denial of same-sex marriage strips them of "fundamental rights." When pressed about these rights and confronted with the concept of domestic partnerships, they claim that domestic partnerships do not allow for recognition of citizenship with foreign lovers, federal tax reductions, and the likes. Hence, their rights are being denied. If they wish to have such rights they should take it up with the government which is preventing those rights, not by trying to redefine marriage. They are attacking the wrong institution.

10. By allowing same-sex marriage to stand in California, we are legitimizing the California Supreme Courts decision for activist judges to create laws that overrule state law (prop 22 passed in 2000, defining marriage in California to be recognized only between a man and a woman). This is a bad precedent. People may agree with the judges decision, but what about the future? What happens when elite judges begin creating other laws with which you do not agree? If we allow judges to create law now, we will be allowing them to create law in the future. We live in a democracy. I do not wish my democratic rights to be trumped by the tyrannical rule of elite judges who feel they (the few) feel what they know is best for the whole.

These are the reasons I feel we should vote "YES" on Proposition 8. You may disagree and that is your right. I believe in democracy and it is time for each of us to decide for ourselves and vote accordingly.








Click here to read a summary of the French Parliamentary Report on the Family and the Rights of Children

Upon My Brother's Grave

Today being memorial day, I took the opportunity in the evening to drive out to San Dimas (or rather Covina Hills) to visit my younger brother's grave at the Forest Lawn cemetery/mortuary. I honestly do not remember my little brother at all--after all, I was only two years old when he was born and he died on the third day of his life. Nevertheless, according to my knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I know that one day I will have the opportunity to meet him. Anyhow, when I arrived at his grave I discovered fresh flowers in a vase upon his gravestone. My parents had already arrived earlier in the day. It is a tradition for my parents to cut flowers from their own garden in order to create a bouquet to place upon his grave.
It gave me opportunity to really evaluate my own life as I thought upon what my brother might be doing on the other side of mortality. I also had a profound sense of gratitude for the atonement of Jesus Christ which makes it possible for all of us to be resurrected--to live again with a perfect body in the life to come.
I should like to include a poem that I had written some time ago when visiting my brother's grave. It is titled "Upon My Brother's Grave" and is in honor of Marc Jeffery Hall (July 20, 1976-July 23, 1976):

There is a quiet hill where thousands sleep
Beneath the grassy waves tossed by the wind,
Where peaceful moments rest in hearts and minds,
Where people rest beneath the azure sky.
There have been days when distant thoughts have fled
And somber reminiscents take their place,
And I, within the valley, turn to look
Upon that green hill, not so far away.
I've glanced upon the beauty of the life
That springs in great abundance from its height
And thought upon my brother and his life
In realms where mortals only dream to dwell.
I've driven, on occasion, to this hill,
And stood, betimes, beside the road where lies
The headstone, and the body there beneath,
Of my dear brother Marc--an infant death.
At times, when young, my parents stood nearby,
And I would watch them with their loving hands,
Place the fresh flowers, from the garden plucked,
Upon the earth in loving memory.
I'd wandered on this hill once unannounced,
Long after all my youthful years were spent,
In search of that dear spot, for what it meant
To my own heart throughout the passing years.
I had not found the spot that summer day,
But gloried in the grand serenity
Upon the grassy hill, beside the trees,
Beneath the clouded sky, within the breeze.
A thousand dead, and my poor memory
Could not recall the spot where in my youth
I held my parents' hands and watched them weep--
I held my parents' hands and watched them smile.
I wandered lonely on that silent hill
Viewing the sculptures and the distant church,
Reading the names and dates of other souls
Who passed breathless silence through the gates,
And pondered briefly on their mortal lives,
I dreaming of the way they might have lived.
Today I have returned to pay respect
And find myself upon this hill alone
With flowers in a jar within my hand
Which I have plucked from the garden of old.
I place them just above the metal plaque
And stare upon my brother's written name,
Then glance upon this glorious of scenes
And ponder on his life and there reflect:
To understand as he would understand.
To view this world with eyes abstained from sin.
To live my life as he would have me live,
Free from the guilt with which I wallow in.
To view my hand, corrupt in mortal spite.
To view his hand long withered in the earth.
To love mankind as he would surely love,
Had more he lived than three days from his birth.
I think upon the life he did not live.
The memories of youth in loving arms--
The blessings of a faithful family.
The pain of suffering a woman's charms.
The joy of simple pleasures in the sun.
The dreams and longings of a youthful mind.
The rapture found within a first love's kiss.
The gratitude that comes with being kind.
He may have been a poet well renowned.
He may have been an artist well revered.
He may have been the dream of all our dreams.
He may have been. . . he may have been. . .
And now his body buried in the grave
And I having been buried in my life,
Live less insightful in daily routines.
Perhaps his spirit watches me this day.
Perhaps he feels my life wasted away.
Perhaps he has a hope unparalleled--
The hope the unseen world keeps in its soul
While we upon this busy mortal plane
Blind all our knowledge with such useless cares,
Living our mortal life yet unaware.
Upon my brother's grave I now reflect
And listen for a whisper to my soul.