'Just let 'em die'...really?

Universal healthcare. Obamacare. Tea Party. Ron Paul. Rick Perry. Ugh.

As the mom of a 6 week old and 2 year old, I'll keep this short. Healthcare is a complicated issue. As a citizen of the richest country in the world, I don't think anyone should die because they can't afford expensive treatment that will save their life or greatly increase their quality of life. However, I also don't think American citizens can be required to purchase a product by the federal government.

Understanding these basics about me, here is my response to Ron Paul's ridiculous "Let them die" moment during the last GOP debate when asked what should happen to a healthy 30 year old man who doesn't purchase health insurance but finds himself in a coma:

Make them pay after you save their life. We garnish people's wages for child support, etc., why couldn't we do something like that after the state fronts the bill to save a person's life? If someone requires treatment and they don't have insurance, take 10% (or whatever) out of their pay check until the bills have been paid. Having your wages garnished would totally suck, but there's the accountability...and you get to live.

People should not be required to purchase health insurance. However if they make the choice not to buy insurance and find themselves in a serious/life/death situation, they should absolutely be treated. What would happen if someone got into a car accident and they come into the ER bleeding all over the place in need of a blood transfusion, but they don't have insurance? Just let them die on the table? Who will pay for the clean up? Not that guy because he doesn't have insurance and now you let him die.

While Ron Paul is correct in that there needs to be accountability for those who don't do their part and buy insurance, the price should not be their life. But we are a compassionate people, and there is room for compassion and accountability. That's my plan, do you have any ideas?

LDS Putting Off Marriage

Many of us may have heard (or heard about) Thomas S. Monson's, president and prophet of the LDS Church, address to the men of the church encouraging them stop putting off marriage. Apparently, there is a trend in the church of young, eligible LDS men who are intentionally not getting married as young as they used to. I was amused that the Sacramento Bee, a Gentile newspaper, saw this as news. The answers to the question "Why?" seem to be obvious: school, career, enjoying bachelorhood, not enough money and/or not enough time.

When I first heard about and read President Monson's address telling young men to stop waiting to get married, I was a little put-off for those young men. What's wrong with wanting to be financially prepared for marriage? What's wrong with waiting until you're done with school? What's wrong with waiting until you're "ready"? (Ok that last one is a trick question; my favorite answer to "How do you know if you're ready to get married?" is "When you're ready to accept the challenges." Otherwise, I don't think anyone is ever "ready").

However, as I read the article and reflected on my own experience, I do think a lot can be lost as an individual and married couple by intentionally putting off marriage until one is older and "ready." I love what Professor Holman in the Sacramento Bee article says: ""When you scrimp and sacrifice together when you're young, that brings you closer."

Holman puts so succinctly how I've felt about getting married at the ripe old age of 20. I NEVER thought I would be one of those LDS girls to get married young, but that's how it worked out for me. I have often thought about how certain things would have been easier if I had waited to get married. However, when I reflect all the growing I've done with my husband, I know that I am stronger and we are stronger because of all the things we've gone through together. In explaining this to other people, I tried to give them the visual of two tree roots growing together to make one, stronger root. Cheesy, I know.

And, indeed getting married young and sacrificing together, really may play a part in why LDS marriages last longer and LDS have fewer divorces. Not that getting married is the answer to lowering the divorce rate; there are a lot of contributing factors, including how LDS look at marriage and their general level of commitment (the #1 determiner of whether a relationship works out).

I know what many are going to say about why people should not get married young, especially women. Here's an example of the things I've heard: "You need to figure out who you are." "Don't you want to have time just to have fun?" "I don't want to get married until I have enough money." "Don't get married until I'm done traveling and doing everything I want to do." I've heard the same things when it came to having children, too.

I never knew exactly how to respond to questions like these because I do think it's important for young people to have the readiness needed to enter into a marriage responsibly, but that's different for each person and doesn't depend on age. I discovered a great response to these questions in an article titled "Defending the Family in Troubled World" by Elder Porter (a church general authority). He highlights teachings of Christ and the prophets and framed them in a way that is relevant to this issue, which really boils down to why family, including getting married, is the most important thing any person can participate in and be a part of. In 2 Timothy 3:2 it says,"“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy …" (not a good thing).

Elder Porter stated that what we constantly hear in our world now is: “You’re number one,” “Do your own thing,” “You’re special,” “Find yourself.” He continued on, "Such messages are so pervasive that we unconsciously absorb them and sometimes repeat them. Yet they are diametrically opposite from the message of the Savior, as recorded in similar language in every one of the four gospels: “He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:39).

I had never thought about how taking time, energy, and other resources from my family (or future family) in the context of this verse could be me losing my life while trying to 'gain a life.' I had never thought about how all the boys I could've dated, the traveling I didn't do, the career(s) I gave up to get married and have children was losing my life in a way that is pleasing to Christ...and exactly what we're supposed to do. Losing our lives in the service a righteous spouse and raising children up to God is not something to be ashamed of...even if it means getting married younger than everyone else. LDS missionaries lose their life in this way for 2 years, too. It's something to be proud of.

Intentionally putting of marriage to partake in activities like education, careers, living the the good life, etc. is really putting off the blessings of the opportunity to grow even closer, stronger earlier with a spouse. You cannot calculate the growth, love, patience, and other Christ-like qualities that come from sacrificing, struggling, learning and growing together.At the same time, men and women are also encouraged to get as much education as possible. 

The bottom line is, don't wait for things to be 'perfect.'

How Bad Could a Mormon President Be?

That is the title of this interesting article by a radio host in Boise (who is not a Mormon). I thought it was a good question, so I'll ask it again: how bad could a Mormon president be?

My answer is: as bad as any other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. president. Would I expect any president who believed these faiths to turn America into a theocracy based on their faith of choice putting their personal beliefs into law? Absolutely not. That's why we have the government system we do. It is the person's values, record, character, ability, etc. that will make them a good or bad president.

This radio host has resigned himself to four more years of Obama. I certainly hope other American voters are not. It will be interesting to see what happens if Obama and Romney are pitted against one-another, especially if Obama decides to 'kill Romney' with personal attacks because he can't run on merit as reported on Politico.com. Perhaps if the stock market continues to crash, the housing market continues to slow, fewer people get jobs than expected (which seems to be the jobless report every time we get one), and still no one knows what Obama's plans are for anything, Americans will decide they really CAN vote for a Mormon over more of the non-hope Obama's presidency has been.

Personally, I'm sick of hearing Obama say, 'We must do better,' and 'I have put together a committee and have a plan.' I don't believe him; it's not encouraging. It's just annoying. Maybe he should go back on Oprah, that would probably help is ratings.

But I don't watch Opera either.

Gay Marriage & GOP Candidates

I found this AP News article, "Gay Marriage: awkward  issue for some GOP hopefuls," to be fascinating on several different levels.

Gay marriage is a very sticky issue for those who are really trying to appease the religious evangelicals (ie Bachman) because I don't think anyone can win by only being appealing to them, but you can lose by upsetting them. However, it is also complicated with social conservatives who do not identify as evangelicals because there is a spectrum of stances on gay marriage...just like with the GOP candidates.

I appreciated the succinct summarization of several of the candidates and their position on gay marriage. Frankly, some of them just don't make sense to me, particularly Governor Perry (Texas) who stated that it's okay for New York to do it, while maintaining that he personally against it. He's making a states rights issue, but gay marriage is not a states rights issue. It is a human issue, no matter what state you are in. It's either okay altogether (in all states) or it's not. Either you believe gay marriage is a moral issue and effects the basic unit of society or you don't. Some issues are states issues, but this is not one of them. That is not a decision that should be left up to individual states. This isn't a statement of whether gay marriage is right or wrong, it's a comment on the nature of the issue.

For Bachman and Perry to say "they respect the rights of individual states to legalize same-sex marriage, yet both also say they would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage nationally as limited to heterosexual couples" seems pretty outrageous to me. As voter, it's hard enough to know what you're going to get when you vote for someone even without glaring contradictory statements like these.

Yes, we should always expect dancing around a complicated issues from all candidates. As a voter, I would appreciate straight (no pun intended) talk and do not want to see candidates playing both sides of the fence. Be sensitive and compassionate to everyone involved, but do not say it's a State's issue but that you are personally against it. I think Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsman (especially the seemingly more moderate Huntsman) may have the advantage in this category of the debate, but we will see what future statements they make...

Finally, I found it very interesting that the advice given to GOP candidates concerning the gay marriage is to simply avoid it because of the complexity and implications of the issue. I think this is the worst advice ever. Voters want to know what they're getting! The economy is a complex issue with huge implications but no one is advising candidates not to talk about it. Gay marriage is not a back-burner issue; people want to know where their representatives stand. Even if it's not the issue they are most concerned about (ie compared to the economy), they want to know what they could probably expect. Personally, if I found a candidate dodging the issue (or any important issue), I would be much less likely to vote for them.

I sure hope these GOP candidates don't listen to the professional advice-givers and start listening to me.

'Non-Christian,' 'Cult' Usage Have Same Motive

Have I mentioned that I love Michael Otterson, Head of Public Affairs for the Church? Well, I do. If I could have a dream job, it would be his, but I doubt I'd be able to state things as 'English' as he does.

In his most recent article written for the Washington Post, he talks about how the word 'cult' is still used (albeit in a sometimes roundabout way) to describe Mormons by many publications around the world. He got a little feisty. And I liked it. He explains why good journalists, who should know better, keep throwing around the word cult as a way to describe Mormons:

Because it’s a neat, shorthand and rather lazy way of putting a whole group into a box. Once labeled as a cult, there is not much need to explain all of the baggage that comes with it - the implicit ideas of extremism, mind control, authoritarianism and secrecy that play perfectly into the kind of rigid stereotypes beloved of the ignorant and bigoted. Journalists could and should do better than perpetuate this kind of shallowness when referring to the fourth largest church in the United States. Rather than continuing to parrot it, it’s time they pushed back against those who choose to use it.

My first reaction is, "Yeah, that's right! You're being lazy journalists!"

My second reaction is that using this type of pejorative language is also the reason many continue to claim that Mormons aren't Christian. As soon as a person (especially politician or pundit), says Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, and all Mormons are not Christians, they are not necessarily attacking our doctrine (because they probably don't know it). They are attempting to put Mormons in a neat little box that is 'implicit of ideas of extremism, mind control, authoritarianism and secrecy...' I would also add that they are attempting to imply that Mormons are less patriotic, less moral and have a secret agenda...because only Christians can be patriotic, moral and have pure intentions (please not that last part is dripping with sarcasm). It's easier to say Mormons are a cult and not Christian than to actually do the work, research and be fair with such labels.

And probably not for the last time, it should not matter if someone is Christian or not when running for the Presidency. If Barrack Obama says he's a Christian, than he's a Christian to me. If he said he was a Muslim, fine. It is not a person's religion that matters to me, it is whether their politics, morals and views are similar to mine. If that means the agnostic candidate is most similar to me, than great; I'll vote for him or her. Come on people!

Courts Should Not Be Involved in Hindu-Vegetarian Case

This news story about 16 strict vegetarian Hindus who are suing a restaurant that mistakenly gave them samosas with meat in them has a lot of people talking. They are suing for the restaurant to pay for all of them to go to India to bathe in the Ganges River as part of a cleansing ceremony that can, apparently, take anywhere from three to thirty days.

Are these restaurant patrons taking advantage of our litigious society? Have they really been irreparably harmed? I think the answer is no to both of these questions.

I don't want to discount the feelings and emotional distress that these people probably genuinely feel by (even accidentally) offending their faith. As a person who holds strict religious standards (and Mormons are notorious for their guilt over mistakes), I can understand how seriously they are taking this. That being said, it does seem extreme to demand a trip to bathe in one of the dirtiest rivers in the world for a month...especially if there's another solution as mentioned at the end of the article.
In discussing this story, a local radio show host stated that these people had no case because they were not actually harmed. If they had been made physically sick, then they would have a case. But, because the harm was spiritual and emotional, and, thus not tangible, they should not be rewarded monetarily. He went on to say that the harm was fake because all religion was fake, even if they individuals think it is real.

While I certainly don't agree with this host that religion is fake, I do think there is a fine line to be walked when suing tangible gain for harm that one believes has been done and harm that has actually been done. I am certainly not an expert on the Hindu religion, however, as stated at the end of the article, there must be a way for this restaurant to pay for its mistake without spending the thousands of the dollars it would cost to send all these people to India for a month (maybe putting that restaurant out of business). Perhaps the cleansing ceremony at a local temple would suffice, but these people see an opportunity for more and want to take advantage. How to prove what one believes will actually cleanse them will be a tough case in the court of law with each side bringing it's own Hindu 'experts' to discuss proper cleansing rituals, etc. Seems like this case will go round and round eventually showing that no one is right or wrong.

So, maybe in that sense the lawsuit is wrong, not because of the restaurant's negligence cannot be proven, but because an appropriate way to cleanse cannot be agreed upon. The courts should have no place determining what is and is not a proper cleansing ritual for these individuals; that should be left up to their religious leaders. Since both the restaurant and the patrons and Hindus, perhaps, if the courts decide to not take this case, it will force the religious leaders of these two sides to come up with an alternate solution that can be agreed upon in the appropriate religious arena.

What's the Big (Love) Idea?

Could I share my husband with another woman? No, I can't even share my chocolate. Does that mean other women shouldn't have the choice to share their husband if they want to? I think they should have that choice. So, I LOVE that 'Sister Wives' polygamist family is bringing this law suit...even if it is doomed to fail. The fact that they are not necessarily seeking recognition, simply an escape from legal prosecution, speaks volumes to the fact that all they want to do is be left alone and practice what they believe in. More power to them.

First things first. I am a member of the mainstream LDS church, which stopped participating in plural marriage in the 1890's; Mormons who are a part of the practice are excommunicated and/or are usually members of a fringe Mormon sect. I do not think the LDS church will bring polygamy back (now there's a Justin Timberlake song) nor is it a practice I personally believe in. It served its purpose in our history and is no longer practiced.

However, I do not understand why polygamy has been and continues to be labeled as such an evil practice. I am no expert, but I did minor in Anthropology at university and with that comes quite a bit of study of different marital practices in different cultures. In a non-Mormon context, polygamy is explained as a way for several women to be taken care of financially, socially, etc. by one man. It's not a condescending situation, it's practical. Historically, when people died young and at very high rates, women needed someone to help them as they raised their families, took care of their homes, and (rarely) worked to make a small income. Women in these situations participated in polygamy because it met their needs...not because they were sexual prey. In fact, because women in polygamous marriages did not have the constant presence of their husbands and everything that brought, one could argue these women were, in fact, more independent than their monogamous counterparts.

However, in every single anthropology class I took, whenever 'polygamy' and 'Mormons' were mentioned in the same sentence, there were dismissive laughs and giggles. These were slightly offensive since it was obvious people were ignorant about the Church's current position on polygamy, but I also never understood the double standard. How was polygamy perfectly acceptable historically and currently in foreign cultures/religions, but not for Mormons? True, our Norther-European, Puritan heritage explains why people worked fervently against Utah statehood for many years because of polygamy. But in this academic setting of supposed higher learning, open-mindedness, and objectivity in the 21st Century, I expected a little more...consistency.

And now, in a country where 41% of children are born to unmarried mothers, how does it make sense to prosecute (and persecute) consenting adults who want to be married, but cannot because the government says they can't be married to more than one person? Would they prefer them to be unwed and supported by the government instead of by their spouse? I'd be interested to know how the state figures out what is a polygamous marriage and not just a few 'co-habitating, swingers'. I bet if they stated it that way on their census forms, then the people would just think 'Oh, that's just an alternative lifestyle. Whatever works for them.' But label it polygamy and you've got instant judgement...and criminality.

What's more, where there are so many vocal gay marriage proponents in this country, how does polygamy not make sense? It's just another kind of family, right? Gay rights proponents (and celebrities) should jump on this bandwagon.

Of course polygamous marriages should follow the same rules as monogamous marriage in our culture. Everyone getting married should be consenting adults; no 12 year old brides. Husbands (and wives) entering into a polygamous marriage have an obligation to support all their children; if they can't do it, then don't add another wife (or use birth control). Anyone should be allowed to the leave marriage as they see fit, especially if their is abuse, emotional neglect, etc. As long as these standards and others are being met, leave polygamists alone.

Instead of prosecuting these families who try to take care of each other and work together (at least the way the family on this show portrays it), I'd much rather see law enforcement going after baby daddies (including professional athletes) who have many children by different mothers and baby-mamas who have multiple children by different men and depend on the government for support.

I wish these 'Sister Wives' the best of luck in their legal endeavor, but am under no illusions it will do more than bring attention to their cause, which is what they want. I hope they succeed in informing the public, but I'm not about to start sharing my chocolate because of it.