Rendering unto Caesar: Being Mormon and supporting marriage equality

(Note: Although I am an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and my lifelong participation necessarily informs my knowledge, beliefs and opinions, these comments are solely mine. They in no way reflect official or unofficial positions of the Church.)

Shortly after Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem and cleansing the temple (his Father’s house) of the money changers, the Pharisees planned to “entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” (Matthew 22:15-17). They assume they have him – right after his most visible and violent angry outburst against those that would pollute the holy sanctuary for profit with currency marked with the state’s insignia, how can the man that just chastised many for making the temple a “den of thieves” (Matt 21:13) now either deny God (and risk his soul) by paying tribute or be deemed a traitor (and risk death) by denying Caesar his lawful tribute?

But he knows what they are up to and chides them: “Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt 22:19-21).

As I’ve thought about the political issue of marriage equality over the past few years, this story has returned to me repeatedly. Many might claim that the story is not applicable, that marriage is not a political or legal construct. And ideally, I would say that’s true because I’m an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I do believe that God has ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman. This belief is rooted in doctrine known within our Church as the Plan of Salvation, which I know to be true. It makes sense to me; it’s what keeps me in the Church, despite cultural issues.

Unfortunately marriage ceased to be primarily a religious contract in a broad sense when an ambitious father first offered his daughter as a means to solidify peace, gain land or procure monies (though certainly on an individual basis it can and does retain its religious significance).

So when I hear talk of protecting the institution of marriage, I have to wonder which institution are we discussing? The one recognized by the state? The one that might be rendered to Caesar? Or is it the one ordained of God? Because I feel we’ve done a very poor job thus far of protecting the latter – adultery, premarital sex, teen pregnancy, pornography. All accepted parts of our current society – all far more detrimental, in my view, to the traditional religious definition marriage and family than legal marriage equality.

Even though as a single Mormon woman I’m not immediately affected either way, my close friends (both Mormon and not) who are gay are impacted by the outcome of this national discourse. And I feel I must weigh my responsibility to my religion and my responsibility as a citizen carefully. They are rarely discordant, but this is an exception. For purposes of my religious beliefs and my church, marriage is ordained of God to be between a man and a woman. And all marriages in churches and temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will reflect that doctrine. I neither expect nor wish this to change.

However, marriage legally serves as a key declaration of commitment and dedication between adults in our society. It bears rights of inheritance and the potential to provide a home for children that might not have one otherwise. It also indicates all people are of equal worth, regardless of sexual orientation. And I think I have an obligation to recognize and support those individuals’ rights. There are times when individual rights take precedence over the special interests of groups, even if I align myself with one of them.

This is one of those times. My brothers and sisters deserve no less than my support.

Searching for Common Sense

After the Newtown tragedy in December 2012, the government’s role in gun regulation has assumed a noisy spot in the nation’s dialog. It’s been a long time coming, and thanks to recent Supreme Court decisions (District of Columbia v Heller 2009 and McDonald v Chicago 2010) that determined the Second Amendment protected the individual’s right to self-defense rather than the stated, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, the nature of the conversation has moved violently to claims of gun regulation is tantamount to tyranny.

The genesis of the 2nd Amendment was due to the British and Loyalists forcibly stripping Patriots of ALL firearms to ensure they could not raise a militia. The comparison of Patriots’ situation to the current regulation discussion veers off the course of logic and common sense, in my view. It’s simply not the same.

So, for those of you doing the considering, please answer the following questions, preferably in detail.

1. Do you feel it more likely to have a semi-automatic rifle used against you by your government or by another random citizen? How would you express these percentages? How did you derive these percentages? Are they based on total number of US citizens attacked by semi-automatic rifles wielded by those following direct command of the US government (Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Kent State come to mind – though I don’t think Kent State used semi automatic weapons) vs those used in tragedies such as Aurora, Newtown, and Columbine?
2. Same question regarding high volume ammunition clips.
3. Explain why detailed paperwork is required for selling cars but shouldn’t be required for guns. Also clarify why background checks and waiting times are targeting law-abiding citizens but most people are ok with obtaining and renewing a drivers license and maintaining auto insurance, if the misuse of both can and has resulted in the death of innocent individuals.
4. Finally, explain how your right to own that AK semi-automatic rifle and multiple ammo clips pre-empts my right to feel safe as I inhabit, unarmed, the same general vicinity.

I can’t see the logic in resisting regulation on military grade weapons with large ammo clips and background checks and waiting times. I don’t see the common sense.

Believe it or not, I’m not anti-gun. My father owns several rifles. He has gone hunting and rather enjoys it. My uncle and cousins in Utah are also hunters. Each of them owns and knows how to use a gun. My brother in law Eric owns multiple rifles and several handguns. My mom, at 70 years old, wants my dad to buy her a rifle so they can go target shootin’ together (it’s a Georgia thing). And I have absolutely no problem with any of it, because these guns have purpose. Each owner knows how to use their gun and is extremely careful with it. I have a profound respect for those that use firearms to be self-sufficient. It’s a rare ability and, in many ways, a gift.

When I was growing up, my father kept his guns up high in the closet where my sisters and I couldn't hope to reach them. The bullets were hidden – 30 years later, I still don’t know where. No member of my family (that I know of anyway) carries a gun on them. And in all honesty, I’d trust only Eric, my Uncle Mark, and my friend Bill (a modern-day Huck Finn if ever there was one) if I were ever in need of defense by firearm (sorry Dad). I think I should personally be denied any background check to purchase a gun owing to my depression. Not that I’m dangerous, but it’s enough of a risk that there are better options available to me. 

Like buying shoes.

But I still don’t see why any members of my family or friends would need a military grade weapon (though they may have them – I haven’t asked, and they don’t tell). Nor do I see why gun regulation should be equated with tyranny.

Tyranny is “the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority”; or “government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.” You may hyperbolically feel President Obama is a tyrant, but it’s impossible to prove this based on his record. As one who voted for him twice, I’d actually prefer it to be easier to prove him a tyrant – then he’d have been more successful in fulfilling his agenda. But he’s been stymied at almost every turn. Tyrants are never stymied. Just ask the jiffy-pop-quaffed North Korean kid with the severe Oedipal complex.

Using tyranny to describe gun regulation is pure hyperbole. And it’s dangerous hyperbole -- both for the public discourse and for proponents against gun regulation. If you disagree, disagree, by all means (this will be a topic in which people premise their arguments on far different assumptions -- which explains the lack of middle ground). But don’t subvert your argument by using language that cannot be substantiated by fact.

With 2009 and 2010 Supreme Court decisions (and the Supreme Court isn’t always right – Dred Scott v Sandford; Plessy v Fergusson; Korematsu v U.S.), it implicitly added credence to the argument that the individual’s right to defend his/herself against an undefined enemy pre-empts the right of unarmed individuals potentially harmed by those armed individuals – because the unarmed individuals aren't explicitly protected in the 2nd Amendment (The Declaration of Independence isn't  unfortunately, a legislative document, and therefore its claim of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is not applicable).

However, in July 2012, shortly after the Aurora, Colorado, shooting, even Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the more (if not the most) conservative justices, recognized that gun regulation will need to be “carefully” considered:

My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be born. So, we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/)

In my view, if we should experience tyranny from our government, it will not come at the end of a barrel of a gun. That comes very, very last. Control of information will be the initial target. If you’re concerned about tyranny, if you want to protect your rights, you should be protecting your right to information and your right to privacy first and foremost. If it comes to a point when we really need to protect our right to bear arms, most likely we'll already be too late – we'll have been living under a tyrant for years and just not realized it. 

If we protect our right to give and receive information and protect our own information, we should never get to that point. If we prudently regulate guns, we may save lives without actually infringing on constitutional rights of individuals. 

I think it's just common sense.

Paul Ryan -- The 21st Century Tin Man

WARNING -- THIS WILL START SNARKY FOLLOWED BY A RATIONAL COMMENTARY I WROTE AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTION -- PROVING I CAN BE REASONABLE. JUST NOT TODAY.

Oh Paul Ryan. If you only had a heart. 

Vouchers? For medical care? For those that have retired or getting ready to do so?  I know we need to balance the national budget. I'm even pretty good with math, so I realize that the path we're on is fiscal suicide. But this isn't the way to do balance it -- unless you plan to use your defense missiles to shoot the old and poor. 

This is just wrong. 

And now it's personal. Because you're planning to voucher me. Yeah, me. I don't feel old, yet. But those vouchers are meant for me and my friends in less than a decade. And we are going to be pissed off. We are the Prozac and Zoloft generation (X if you need a letter). We've survived craptastic nonsense in the workforce when we graduated college, rode out two major market bubbles (plus a multitude of mini bubbles that most people don't even know about) and are the heart and soul of the recovery (read the papers and analysis -- we're doing it because we know how to come back from disappointment. We've been doing it all our lives. Especially the women). Don't underestimate us.

Your vouchers take away our medical care and it will be unpleasant. Really UNPLEASANT. For example, by virtue of BAAAAD genes, I have depression and asthma. Vouchers = limited care = limited meds = dying young. Is that actually your plan? Because if it is, well, that's pretty damn brilliant. Heartless, but brilliant. And you've managed to make the estate tax go away for most folks -- again, well done you. Conner, Riley, and Ibby, you should be coming into some money within about 15 years -- tax free.

So high-five the rest of your GOP cronies. You've pulled it off. You can take your AK-47s and your defense missiles and light yourselves like Roman Candles to celebrate.

Please. I insist.

But if I had my druthers, you'd be more like the Ken doll you so readily embody -- completely mute without bendable knees or elbows. On Vouchers. 

At least I opted for the Twilight one. The wolf guy. Because I think he P90Xs too.

RANT OVER. I feel better.

Here's the rational part -- I'll get there again. Just this and the assault weapons ban defeat. Too much in one week. I fully realize the statements above undermine my first paragraph below. But I'm human, and I'll own the contradiction.

Why I voted blue on Tuesday. (posted on Facebook 11 November 2012)

It seems every election cycle is the most vitriolic I’ve seen, and this was no exception. Pundits on both sides were not only negative, but cruel. I’ll not lie, I’ve tended to be to be more liberally minded on most issues since I could vote. But, like my grandfather before me, I consider myself an independent and do look at the qualities of the individual candidates as neither party fully represents my interests (I did support President Bush the Elder, after all).

I’m a practicing single Mormon. I believe in all the doctrine of my church and this forms the basis of all my decisions. My litmus test comes down to which policy will protect the agency of most people and which policy is the most compassionate. And for me, agency is not defined by the level of taxes I pay, whether healthcare is mandated, or guns are regulated. It’s defined by whether we will be able to make critical decisions about our bodies and our families. Agency is the greatest power we have, and my vote will always be for the candidate I believe most effectively protects the foundations of agency for all people, regardless of race, sexual orientation or gender.

I strongly believe that the responsibility for life begins before conception (through information, ideally abstinence before marriage, but contraception if not) and thus the responsibility (and consequences) for making a decision regarding the welfare of that life lies with the parents (and anyone else they choose to involve in that process), not with the state. To be clear: under no circumstances do I support abortion being used as post conception means of contraception for those that made unwise decisions, but this needs to remain the decision of those directly involved.

I believe God has ordained marriage as an ecclesiastical construct to be between a man and a woman. However, marriage as a social and legal construct also has very specific rights associated with it that should be available to any two legally permitted adults who desire to be so joined. In many countries in Europe, you must legally marry at court before you marry at the church. No matter what angle I approach this sensitive topic, denying same-sex couples the right to legally marry is, in my view, discrimination, regardless of my ecclesiastical beliefs.

If I were to have voted solely based on my own personal fiscal interests, I’d have been a Romney girl 100%. I work on Wall Street and while I’m not the 1%, I do ok. However, I think that anyone that does well has a responsibility to help those that do not. Some are willing to do so on their own, but far too many are not. And I’m keenly aware that there are some that take advantage of the social programs (I live in NYC after all). But I see far more often people that legitimately benefit from these programs – sometimes within my own family (who, ironically, vote red). I believe that if we provide opportunity for people to eat, have shelter, and get an education (which needs to be stronger in math and sciences, btw), we will have a strong base for a stronger economy and better innovation. This is not to say that we shouldn’t make cuts. There is unquestionably gross misuse of funds. But we need to ask more of those that have more to give and use the resources we have far more wisely. There’s great precedent for this – World War I, The Great Depression, World War II. Taxes on the wealthiest Americans ranged 67%-94% during these periods. I also think it’s helpful to look at income taxes over the past century and compare that to income disparity.

History of income tax rates adjusted for inflation (1913-2010)
	Number of	First Bracket	Top Bracket
Year	Brackets	Rate	Rate	Income	Adj. 2011	Comment
1913	7	1%	7%	$500,000	$11.3M	First permanent income tax
1917	21	2%	67%	$2,000,000	$35M	World War I financing
1925	23	1.5%	25%	$100,000	$1.28M	Post war reductions
1932	55	4%	63%	$1,000,000	$16.4M	Depression era
1936	31	4%	79%	$5,000,000	$80.7M
1941	32	10%	81%	$5,000,000	$76.3M	World War II
1942	24	19%	88%	$200,000	$2.75M	Revenue Act of 1942
1944	24	23%	94%	$200,000	$2.54M	Individual Income Tax Act of 1944
1946	24	20%	91%	$200,000	$2.30M
1964	26	16%	77%	$400,000	$2.85M	Tax reduction during Vietnam war
1965	25	14%	70%	$200,000	$1.42M
1981	16	14%	70%	$212,000	$532k	Reagan era tax cuts
1982	14	12%	50%	$106,000	$199k	Reagan era tax cuts
1987	5	11%	38.5%	$90,000	$178k	Reagan era tax cuts
1988	2	15%	28%	$29,750	$56k	Reagan era tax cuts
1991	3	15%	31%	$82,150	$135k
1993	5	15%	39.6%	$250,000	$388k	Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
2003	6	10%	35%	$311,950	$380k	Bush tax cuts
2011	6	10%	35%	$379,150	$379k

Source: U.S. Federal Individual Marginal Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2009; Wikipedia

While on the subject of finances and economics, the markets need more regulations, not less. I’m in the regulatory trenches, and I’ve gone through the Healthcare, Internet, Telecom, Energy, and Real Estate bubbles. I am face to face with the minds of Wall Street every day. For those working in this business, a large part of the rush is winning the “game.” Out thinking the regs/finding the loophole is a challenging puzzle to solve. Self-interest does not regulate the market – someone always loses; the questions are timing and magnitude. We all too frequently are enacting laws to protect people against abuse of the markets that have already happened, which, of course, are useless for those were burned in the last scandal. We are currently recovering from such an episode – Frank Dodd doesn’t have nearly the teeth to prevent something like this from occurring in the future.

Finally, I feel that we have a responsibility to doing all we can to preserving the earth for future generations. It’s just as important as not handing a huge deficit to those same generations.
So, there will need to be priorities set and some things will not get done immediately – I realize that (I am well acquainted with double entry accounting and have spent quality time with both income statements and balance sheets).

And it’s not that I didn’t like Romney (well, I didn’t like his hair). But I have not liked the way Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor have represented their party (and what I believe is the minority, though well funded minority, they represent). I felt that their blatant disrespect toward the President and toward a leader in their own part (John Boehner, who I think genuinely desires to do what is best for the country, which would mean compromise) have been reprehensible. Were Romney elected, I feared that he, too, would be constrained by obligation to the likes of McConnell and Cantor. I don’t always like Obama’s decisions (ie, in the Healthcare bill, if it’s a tax, call the thing a tax for heaven’s sake), but he has stood up against his own party in the interest of compromise – I’ve seen little of that on the other side of the aisle over the past 12 years. Very little.

So I voted for Obama. It was not an evil decision. It was a prayerful, researched, well-thought out decision. Many did not agree with it, but that’s just fine. For those that voted Romney and are now seeing signs of the apocalypse, well, all I can say is, now you know how we felt in 2004. Gratefully, your re-elected president said, “By itself, the recognition that we have common hopes and dreams won’t end all the gridlock or solve all our problems or substitute for the painstaking work of building consensus and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward. But that common bond is where we must begin. ... And whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you, I have learned from you, and you’ve made me a better president. And with your stories and your struggles, I return to the White House more determined and more inspired than ever about the work there is to do and the future that lies ahead.” In 2004, President Bush said, “Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.” He said he intended to use it on social security reform, education, moving the economy forward, and fighting and ending the wars that he had begun. I believe even those who strongly oppose Obama’s policies can take some solace from his statements.

Since we now have a lame duck president, in 4 years we’ll have no incumbent, and I’ll be interested to see who appears from both sides of the aisle (and maybe from outside the chamber altogether). I’d love to see Jon Huntsman or Chris Christie ante up. I don’t agree with them 100%, but they aren’t owned by their party. They value agency because they clearly exercise it as they govern. They’ve shown themselves to be compassionate and mindful of many issues.

But for now, divisiveness is not in anyone’s best interest (MSNBC, FoxNews, I’m looking at you). There is no “game” to win – only lives to improve. I believe the current president is desires to improve the quality of all people’s lives. I hope that his counterparts are equally willing.

P.S. Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, would you both please just stop?