Who says you get to define the family Mr. Christensen

A couple of days ago the local Salt Lake City questioned Rep. Lavar Christensen (R) about House Bill 270.  This was his response if you can call it that....



Here is the bill:

 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:

---

Section 1. Section 30-1-4.2 is enacted to read:
  30-1-4.2. Public policy in support of family.


 (1) The institution of marriage and family, consisting of the legal union of a man and a woman and children conceived and born to, or adopted by, the married couple as father and mother, is the fundamental unit of society and the optimum environment in which to nurture and raise a child.


Sure.... when the marriage works and both parents love each other and when there is sufficient money and education and when the rainbow touches ground where the unicorns walk.  But what about those equally beautiful alternatives.  When two people love each other and they are same sexed?  What about the times when the traditional family mode does not work?

This is a public policy statement.  That means the rules the agencies provide services under are free to dismiss the alternative lifestyles people may choose.  That is why this is more concerning than the typical non binding resolutions that the Utah State Righteouslature passes.  Additionally, let's acknowledge that this law only restricts the legal union to a man and a woman here on earth.... not in the three kingdoms of glory where polygamy is still practiced and polygamous marriages are still sanctioned and sealed for eternity in the temples of the lord and this is where the hypocrisy lies.



(2) Marriage and family predate all governments and are supported by and consistent with the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World, affirmed in the nation's founding Declaration of Independence. 


This is where the law runs completely off the tracks constitutionally.  You cannot canonize the existence of any god in state law.  It violates the separation clause of the Constitution.  Nor can you claim a creator exists in the natural law without proof.

Marriage and family do not predate any goverments.  Marriage by definition is:  "The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."  Whether controlled by religious or legal expression the institution was established by a governance.  The government may have been religious dogma or secular laws but it is a government none-the-less.  Before the establishment of governments (either religious or secular) there was no legitimate basis for marriage.  This clause as a policy statement represents logical fallacy and a supposition that there is really a God and that he give two hoots in hell what we do.

Finally, when will creationists stop using the Declaration of Independence as a basis for our governance.  The declaration was the document that plunged the new American Society into chaos.  It did not establish an interim government and was not meant to.  It merely vented our grievances to the dictator that oppressed us and was really today's version of a middle finger.  The Confederate Papers where the first for of governance and they were replaced by our secular constitution that says nothing about a god.



(3) Marriage represents the legal sanction and approval of society and is essential to ordered liberty and public virtue.


The bold highlight is what this is really about.  However our constitution is designed to protect even those who are minorities.  That is why Utah and it's predominant religion has survived.  Because if it was subject to the approval of society it would have never been able to thrive.  As a legal sanction, one that is the be mediated by our courts, it must be a secular exercise.  In fact, the marriages provided justices of the peace are equally binding as those performed in a church and the only thing that makes a marriage binding is the marriage license signed by both parties.  Not the ritual.

The claim that marriage is essential to ordered liberty falls flat when you consider that 50% of all marriages fail.  Of the 50% that survive it is unlikely that all are "happy".

(4) Procreation within marriage links generations and is fundamental to the perpetuity of humanity.


Linking generations has nothing to do with the perpetuity of humanity.  Procreation does.... but our humanity is not determined by our ability to procreate or our attachment to a ritual that was developed to lay claim to property.  It is determined by our ability to engage in compassion and nurture and care for all members of our species without prejudice based upon tribal bonds.  Marriage does not serve all of the species nor should it bind two people who no longer desire to be together.


(5) (a) Families anchored by both a father and a mother, fidelity within marriage, and enduring devotion to the covenants and responsibilities of marriage are the desired norm.

Until it no longer works for both parties.

(b) Cultures and societies where laws, practices, and public policies protect, preserve, and promote such enduring and time-honored family values and principles are happiest,healthiest, and most stable.

Show me how this is true... besides you say it true.  Cultures and societies who value each and every individual no matter what their orientation, isn't that what this is really about, are the happiest and healthiest and most stable.  Cultures who look critically at religion and it's claims are happiest and healthiest.  Cultures who have an evidence base not superstition and supposition are really exercising the time-honored tradition of using our intelligence to further the species.


(6) The furtherance and protection of order and public morality are legitimate and substantial government interests.

Marriage does not protect the public morality.  In fact before we declare it does please define "Public Morality."  The idea of public morality is an intrusion on the individual in this context.  We are not talking about public sex, public nudity, or public sacrifice.  We are talking about giving everyone the same rights and acknowledging that homosexuality is no more prevalent now that it has been historically and there is significant evidence that it has a genetic component.  Truth is at the center of our substantial government interest not the nonsense contained in this bill.



(7) To the extent social problems arise that adversely affect the desired optimum family condition, such as the dissolution of marriage, crime, poverty, immorality, violence, and other conditions that place added responsibilities on individuals and communities through publicly funded and administered social programs and government services, laws and regulations shall be carefully scrutinized to determine how they impact the family and the protection of children.

We already have public policy and laws that deal with violence and immorality as it applies to a child that cannot consent.  We do not need the government to determine what is immoral between consenting adults.  It is foolish to declare society as a victim where there is no proof this is the case.  An unwed parent reproducing has no greater effect on society than a married couple reproducing 8, 9, 10 times without the ability to support the child they bring into the world.  One is not more sacred or more moral than the other.  Unless we are willing to control when and how all people reproduce this statement has all the vibrato of a one handed golf clap.  If you are serious about improving marriage as an institution then promote sex education that discusses, frankly how babies are made and how to prevent them and how to best engage in a relationship with another human that reflects the real world not your ideal version of it.

In this paragraph the item of most concern is the alluding to controlling the dissolution of marriage.  The representative even alludes to this in his interview.  He doesn't want no fault divorces.  To bind two people together, when one does not what to be in the relationship, assigns the disaffected person to the role of property.  That is immoral.


(8) (a) The laws of the state shall, to the fullest extent possible, strengthen, safeguard, and sustain families.

Again..... sex education... comprehensive sex eduction required in middle school and all 4 years of high school.

(b) They shall respect and promote the essential and complementary roles of both a father and a mother and uphold this public policy for the greatest public good.

The greatest public good comes from respecting the individual and in helping them reach their potential.  Not by dogmatic laws that are designed to strip the rights of a valuable class of our species.  Mr. Christensen this law is immoral and indefensible.  Come to us with the specific studies that support your claim, not sound bites from the last General Conference.  You have failed to do your due diligence.  You were asked to provide justification for this bill by the reporter.  Start by answering the questions and providing the proof and then draft a bill supported by evidence.  Your personal morality may work for you but it does not work for anybody else.

(Cue the unicorns)