It's my 100th post and it's about Sex!

.... No this is not a Penthouse Forum post.  Your not going to find out anything about my secret sexual desires or what I like to do in the privacy of my own room.  It is about my disgust with the current attacks on the availability of healthy sexual information to our children.  The Utah Legislature is in session.  45 days of the year the Utah Legislature does everything they can to act in their own interest and against the interest of the Utah population.

Gayle Ruzicka - The very face of Evil

Representative Bill Wright (R) introduced HB 363 on the docket with the intent of banning all discussion of contraception, homosexuality and sexual practices from the public school health and sex eduction programs.  This should be seen as an assault on our children because it is exactly that!  Even the BYU Health Services Department has come out against this bill.   

Cougar Hall, assistant professor and school health adviser at Brigham Young University told the committee that Utah current law is very conservative. He said he supports abstinence education 100 percent, but there needs to be some information out there for students at risk.

"It is immoral to withhold life-saving information from segments of our population because it doesn't fit our value system," Hall said.~ Deseret News

Bill Wright used his granddaughter as a prop to defend his bill saying:

"She represents the innocence of those we are really talking about," Wright said. "This is not an important part of our curriculum. … It is just basically something out there that takes away from the character in our schools and takes away from the character of our students."

....

"I think we are intellectually dishonest when we teach pregnancy prevention in our classes and do not teach the only sure pregnancy prevention," Wright said.

My daughter Jessica (Liberal Blogger Kate) pointed out the misogyny in this tactic saying that only a girl could represent the innocence lost by sex.  He did not bring in a grandson because using a young boy as a prop would not have the same effect.

Mr. Wright is a Dairy Farmer by trade.  I don't say this to mock is chosen profession but to mock his credentials as a health educator or someone who would set health education policy.  To this end, Mr. Wright is  advocating withholding information from children and to rely on the failures of the past.  Parents do not really educate their children about sex.  Most of them are as qualified as Mr. Wright, or the woman with her hand up his back, Gayle Ruzicka; to provide real world sexual information to children.  Just because you have had sex, does not make you an expert.  Our children should be educated about their bodies and how they function mechanically and psychologically.  Our goal for our children should be not just having safer sex but developing a healthy attitude toward sex.  They will eventually have sex and we need to raise them in an environment where they can have good sex.

If you take Mr. Wright's comments and view them in the daylight your will realize how absurd they are.  We teach math in progressive steps.  Counting, Basic Addition, Subtraction and so on.  We do not expect them to open up a Trigonometry book and start solving the problems.  The same goes for their bodies.  Bad sexual information leads to bad decisions and bad sex.  I wish I had the information I know now when I was a teen and even in my 20's.  I feel like I was robbed to some degree of many additional years of good sex.  As much as I now know, I still find that I have some general misconceptions about sex.  If I am left to educate my children on my own those misconceptions could be passed on as bad information.

We have progressed, as humans, beyond the bronze age but for some reason we continue to cling to attitudes and practices from that era.  I don't know what Mr. Wright and the Puppet Master Ruzicka have to gain by denying quality information to children.  Why is denying the truth a virtue?  In response, I am linking two websites that are a great jumping off point for sexual information.  The first is Go Ask Alice from Columbia University and the second is Kinsey Confidential from Indiana University.  I think it is time somebody tells Gayle Ruzicka to shut up and sit down.  Let's provide our children with good information with an acknowledgement that the older they get the less they need us and the more independent their decisions become.

How Legislated Hate Gets a Pass in Religious Communities

Two days ago I posted my commentary on Lavar Christensen's proposed HB 270.  While I still mean everything I said in that post it has come to my attention I may have been distracted by the shiny keys being jangled.  It appears this is one of three bills designed to not directly, but in a round about way, void the progress made by local municipalities to give equal protection to homosexuals or any other fringe group not specifically protected by the federal anti discrimination laws.

This article written by Peg McEntee outlines what she call may be unintended consequences of the HB 109, HB 270 and HB 182.  

McEntee: Unintended consequences in “one man, one woman” bill

Given the way the Utah Legislature works, there is no such thing as an unintended consequence when it comes to piety.  Mr. Christensen has put together a strategy to very callously strip away any inroads we have made toward equality and to affording all of our citizens equal protection under the law no matter what they believe religiously or who they love sexually.  What he will be successful in accomplishing is the further insulation religious bigots from consequences for their actions.

For some reason, Christensen finds it necessary to beef up protections for “religious liberty and freedom of conscience” that already exist in the Utah and U.S. constitutions.
But at what point does religious liberty collide with more secular protections against racial, gender or any other manner of discrimination?
Your religious principles allow you to refuse restaurant service to a person of color? You object to a woman with children working outside the home, so you won’t hire her? You won’t rent an apartment to two single women or men because their possible sexual orientation might be an affront to your faith?
Christensen has an answer: “The free exercise of religious liberty is a recognized exemption to otherwise generally applicable laws and a valid defense to claims of discrimination by others.”

So if you believe that Black Americans are inferior based upon religious dogma you are free to exercise that here in Utah without consequence.  If you want to deny housing, in Salt Lake City, to homosexuals, where the  denial would be illegal you are free to do so under his additional religious expression.  If you want to refuse to teach principles in the class room that have been proven by science you are free to do so.

Equally disturbing is his amendment to 13-8-6 makes a law that violates "public policy" unenforceable.  If paired with HB 270 it makes it so the no fault divorce option may be unavailable to couples who fall out of love and don't want a long messy divorce.  It further prevents gay adoption, marriage, and perpetuates legally protected discrimination when paired HB 109.

As an outspoken Militant Atheist the idea that religion needs additional protection is absurd.  You have the right to practice what you will as long as you don't injure someone else in the process.  Denying someone housing based upon what they might do in their bedroom is causing injury.  Denying a child a loving parent because that parent loves someone of the same sex is injurious.  But it is not just on the gay rights front that this is dangerous.  It is single mothers, unmarried couples, and potentially mixed race couples that will run afoul of the cleverly disguised trifecta of hate proposed by Rep. Christensen.

There is a question that often runs in atheist circles:  "Do we have to show tolerance to that which is intolerant?"  Does religion deserve the respect it demands and that is constitutionally protected?  More importantly, does it deserve additional protections that alters the playing field and gives it a "better than" status.  I submit the answer to the above questions is no.... not when it uses it protections to force the rest of us to live in its shadow and harms any member of our populous in the name of its distorted world view.  Mr. Christensen is using his piety to influence public policy even though the result will ultimately be harmful to our society.  Unfortunately most Utahn's will nod their heads in agreement or are too busy watching the Super Bowl or American Idol to pick up a local news paper to educate themselves the impact of the legislation.  We know we want a democratic republic but we are unwilling to participate in the process.

Write you local Representative and Senator and let them know you find this group of bills unconscionable.  Let's give no public forum for hate.

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)

"As a Thief in the Night" - The Utah Theocracy Regains Power

For 4.25 years Utah enjoyed some progressive thought. Under Governor Jon M. Huntsman we saw a relaxing of our liquor laws and support for civil unions. If it weren't for his economic policies and the idea that the government could be run like a business....he would look like a Utah Democrat. Now by definition and actions a Utah Democrat looks like a Moderate Republican in any other state.

Huntsman's legacy was marred when he resigned to take the Ambassadorship in China and he left the state to Gary Herbert. Herbert, a not very smart mean spirited ultra conservative voice and lackey of the Eagle Forum. I know this sounds harsh but under Huntsman Gayle Ruzicka and the Eagle Forum had significantly reduced influence. However, Herbert, who would not have ever been elected governor, needs her support to win the special election this year.

Unfortunately, the rise of power for Herbert also means a rise to power for Gayle Ruzicka. Now you might think that the curmudgeon has lost his mind or that I am subscribing to conspiracy theories...Take a look at this video posted by Chino Blanco on his Youtube Channel:



I am not sure if the significance of this video occurred to Chino Blanco when he posted it but I watched with a knot in my stomach as I saw the obvious work of the Knitting Needle Mafia. My instincts were confirmed at 1:11 into the video when the evil Empress Darth Ruzicka approached the chair and was greeted with a two handed clasp or honor.

Okay, it is true that Utah's STD rates are lower than the national average but the current trend is a near doubling of cases or STD's over the last five years. It is so concerning that pediatricians and primary care physicians are speaking out. According to the Utah CDC teens are more likely to get chlamydia than the seasonal flu. Girls are infected at 2:1 ratio over boys. If we don't have educational intervention with measurable outcomes we will soon be chasing the trend.

According to Paul Rolly of the Salt Lake Tribune the whole sorted affair went down like this:

Ruzicka pulled out all stops last weekend to muster her Eagle Forum forces to pressure legislators to slam the door on Urquhart's sex education bill before it could ever rise to the level of public debate on its merits.

Thanks to Ruzicka's Eagle Forum, the bill died in the Senate Education Committee on Monday. Ruzicka and her minions didn't need persuasive argument to kill the bill. They didn't need facts. They didn't even need to be on the right side of the issue. All they needed was a tool to dig a grave in which to bury the bill. And the perfect tool they found was Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, chairman of the Education Committee.

Gayle Ruzicka is the mother of 12 children all of which were educated at home. I don't understand why she feels she has an obligation to tell me or any other parent how we can choose to have our children educated. Her track record as a parent is not spotless. She is not the shinning example of benevolence and love that we might look to for our leadership. The fact is she is a bigot who counts as her friends Senator Chris Buttars and Senator Curtis Bramble. None of which have ever been burdened with the facts, logic, critical thinking or a real desire to serve the interest of the Great State of Utah.

I am a believer that it is time to start standing up for reason. That is why I believe that more than complaining about topic on my blog it is time for a call to action. I encourage those who are ill-served by Senator Bramble to call for his resignation. I also suggest local formation of phone trees to get combat the knitting needle mafia and email's to your local representatives to let them know where you stand. Gayle Ruzicka has shown that a minority interest can get a disproportionate share of the influence by being the squeaky wheel. I am willing to stand up, to lobby, to support candidates who are willing to vote for issues based upon the facts not ideology. It is time for disciples of reason to come out of the shadows and take control from theologues in the legislature. This is not an event....it is a process...one if delayed represents further harm to our children and our citizens.

Christian Nation?

We are romping into the holiday season and in the United States that means Thanksgiving kicks off the Christmas season. I personally have a love/hate relationship with Christmas. I decorate for the holidays and have a great time doing it. I do not believe however that Jesus was the Christ or even a real person nor do I think someone else's death will give me salvation.

This season also brings out the pre-legislative session bills and those who claim there is a war on Christmas and Christianity. I read a facebook status today that for some reason got under my skin.

Let's see how many people on fb aren't ashamed to show their love for God and admit that Jesus is their Savior... We need to get God back in America... If you're not ashamed, copy and paste this in your status... P.S. - "Question with boldness, hold to the truth, and speak without fear!" - Glenn Beck

Now I personally do not care how many people on facebook profess their love for god or admit that Jesus is their savior. I think that is their right and conversely they should leave me to my atheist rants as well because that is my right. I am however concerned about the idea that we need "to get god back in America"!?! I watched a Brian Dalton lecture the other night resonated with my feelings on this subject. Brian Dalton does the popular "Mr. Deity" series on YouTube. Here is a clip;




We continue to operate under the premise of American exceptional ism stating boldly that 'god wanted us to settle this country and we are the greatest country in the world because god wants us to be'. This belief is not only foolish but it is dangerous.

When we are demanding that god be returned to our country are we demanding it be the Christian god only? Or if we bring god back can it be the Muslim god? How about a Hindu god? You see I firmly believe that god only exists in our individual minds. Your definition of god is not the same as your neighbors. In fact no two people in the same congregation will see god in the same way. The problem is that as humans we are willing to kill each other over who we believe is right.

As we move into the 2010 legislative session our conservative legislature is lining up a series of bills that will help return god to our country. The first in the series now out is a push to remove the phrase "Liberally Construed" from the rules. Not because it is bad for the agencies who are charged with the rule to "liberally" interpret or to loosely apply the rule but because it has the word "liberal" in it and liberals are against god. The Salt Lake Tribune Columnist Paul Rolly recently drew a line between the movement of Conservapedia to the Eagle Forum who is pushing to have the language removed from the rules(and there are many). The Eagle Forum has the second biggest voice on the hill next to the LDS Church. This gives the Neo-Conservative Fascist Gayle Ruzicka more access than the average citizen because she represents what god wants.

I would challenge any and all religious people to put their focus on their fellow man. This year especially. Forget about getting god back into America and look out for all Americans not just your fellow Christians. Don't do it because god wants you to or because its what Jesus would do but because it the the right thing to do.

Gay Rights

The righteouslature is in session right now and I keep hearing how allowing Gay couples the same rights as heterosexual married folks is a "slippery slope" to destroying the traditional family and traditional family values. Every time I hear that statement the flashing word "bigot" comes to mind.



As it says in my profile, I am married, I have five children and with the risk of sounding like Larry Craig, R, Idaho...I am not gay, I have never been gay. I have however, at one point in my life, been a bigot.



I moved away from home when I was 18. I lived in an apartment with my best friend Austin and my not so best friends Clint and Phillip. We had a typical bachelor pad. Clint found himself in love and need to quickly get married in the Temple before his unprincipled male urges made him temporarily ineligible to marry in that building.



At 18, I looked 16. I was working on the show "Barnum" at Pioneer Theatre Company" at the University of Utah. The lead male, Jess Richards, was 42 years old. He started to pay some attention to me and eventually made a physical pass at me in his dressing room. As an 18 year old boy who grew up in a very sheltered small town, this was a shock. I had always been obsessed with girls. However, I thought that I was oozing a gayness from my pores and that there must be something wrong with me. Why else would this guy have got the impression that I was gay.


I spent the next week fairly withdrawn trying to figure out if there was something wrong with me. I didn't discuss the incident with anyone and Jess figured out that he had crossed the line and apologized to me. My "manhood" was reaffirmed when I saw an attractive woman at the swimming pool in a bikini and I knew that was what I liked.


We needed a roommate to cover Clint's portion of the rent. I had met this kid Joey at the theatre. He was from Price (if I remember correctly). A town smaller than the one I grew up in. He was looking for a place to live. I asked him point blank if he was gay. He claimed he was not. He lied. He had all of the stereotypical attributes that pop culture would assign a gay male but I initially took him at his word. He changed major from theatre to nursing and then told me he wanted to work with AIDS patients. He eventually started hanging out with a kid from the U who turned out to be the president of the Gay Lesbian bisexual Transgender Student Union. Joey and his friend were by all accounts nice guys. They were much nicer than Phillip. Now Just in case you think this is going to be one of those "It's a Wonderful Life" endings you are sadly, as am I, mistaken. I invited Joey to move out. I was much more comfortable with a womanizer alcoholic (Phillip) than I was living with a gay male.


I grew up in a small town were being gay meant you could at minimum ostracised and could very likely get your ass kicked. My dad was former Military and grew up in a smaller town than he was raising us in. He had no tolerance for homosexuals and would not be opposed to using derogatory language to describe them. One of the worst insults and one the meanest things ever said to me by my mother was insinuating that because I was into theatre that I was a "queer".

During the school year I had more opportunities to date men than I did women. I was asked out several times by dancer's, actors, crew members. I went out once with the president of the local chamber of commerce's....daughter. My prejudices against homosexuality had started to harden and become part of who I am.

The summer of '84 I went to Park City, UT to work as the Production Stage Manager of the Park City Shakespeare Festival. While there I met Anne. Anne was a good listener with an incredibly engaging smile and a devilish twinkle in her eyes. Anne and I became friends. Although she was never a romantic interest we would be seen holding hands, walking arm in arm, and in other situations that led others to believe we were "together". I started to share with Anne a level of honesty I had yet to share with anyone (except my former girlfriend and current wife.). One evening Anne and I were in the hallway of the condo complex I was staying in. If I remember correctly my head was in her lap and we were having a quiet conversation about life. During the course of discussion I blurted an insensitive and homophobic remark out. At that moment I felt Anne tense up, she stared into my eyes and said matter-of-fact-ly, "Kevin, I am gay".

It was at this moment that my views changed dramatically, I pulled my foot out of my mouth and with tears in my eyes apologized. I love Anne, as a friend, a confidant, as a fellow human being and wanted to do nothing to hurt her. For me, Anne took the us and them factor out of homosexuality. She was what we should all know about all people we encounter, a person with feelings, passions, desires and with a huge capacity to love.

With the exception of my love Lisa, no one else has had a bigger impact I the way I view the world than Anne. I returned to the U with new acceptance for the people I worked with. I no longer found it threatening to be in the company of gay actors who openly would tell me they thought I was cute. I have never met a gay person who knowing that I was straight tried to recruit me. I knew what my gender preferences were because they had been assigned to me at conception as I believe theirs were.

Now we have seen 3 "Common Ground" bills defeated by the legislature because they extend some protections to homosexuals including the right to visit their loved on in the hospital, the right to inherit property, and the right to be free from discrimination in the work place. These are some things that were promised when we had amendment three rammed down our throats by a pious legislature and a bigoted electorate. The buzz word is "slippery slope." If we allow them protection from discrimination we may have to allow them to marry and god forbid have the same opportunity for happiness the rest of us get. We may have to acknowledge they are "fellow passengers to the grave".

I think the most reprehensible things said have been said by State Senator Chris Butters. Unfortunately this bigot represents my district. In a recent Salt Lake Tribune Article he said the gay-rights movement "probably the greatest threat to America," likened gay activists to Muslim radicals and called same-sex relationships "abominations." Unfortunately he is the only politician who says what he believes. Many of our elected officials believe the same thing privately and vote publicly with those prejudices.

In my home it is not that way, we accept everyone. I don't have gay friends and straight friends...I have friends. My children are the next generation and my adult children support rights for all. My younger children are being raised to support the rights for all as well. I hope they follow the lead of their siblings. Maybe between now and the next generation we can turn the tide and vote the way of equality for everyone.

Thank you Anne...I think that everyone should have an Anne in their lives....and Joey...I am sorry.

Hold on to your rights...the Legislature is in session!

For the last decade or so I have followed the Utah State Legislature while it is in session. Every year we get a new 340 or so laws and resolutions. However we rarely see any removed from the books. For example, in Utah Fornication is a Class B Misdemeanor. What does that mean? Technically pre-marital sex is a crime. Now they have acknowledged they have not enforced this law for years but they have a moral imperative to keep it on the books because pre-marital sex is immoral.

Private Clubs and the Zion Curtain

This year the hot button issue is our ridiculous liquor laws. Let me stop you before you are inclined to point out to me that we are not the only state with silly liquor laws....Just because someone else is doing it does not mean that we should. Here in Utah the control of liquor is more than a public health issue it is a moral issue. The state legislature is controlled by an overwhelming group of Teetotalers. Folks who have not consumed alcohol in their lives and their knowledge of alcohol consumption is based upon their religious and moral objections to it. The LDS church has a strong moral objection to any consumption of alcohol. Most of our legislators are LDS. It is not the public health portion of the argument that causes folks to want to deny your free choice to consume, in a bar, an alcoholic beverage. It is the religious moral objection. There is a moral imperative and that translates into a crusade and if you don't get on the wagon you will be ran over by it.

We have a private club system here in Utah and I believe we are the only state that does. We relegate alcohol sales to liquor stores that are closed on Sunday and Election Day (as well as all other state and federal holidays). What we know is the Private Club system is no more successful at stopping underage drinking than our Liquor stores. The liquor stores are about revenue. In a state where we try to privatize everything including some emergency services and prisons, we have state run liquor stores(socialism?). Why? They really do not stop or slow the flow of alcohol but they do produce revenue because all alcohol is taxed and marked up at a ridiculous rate. That money goes to pay for the expensive retail buildings and state employees (most of whom get health benefits and retirements that all retail sales folks would love to have).

Now the President of the Senate, Michael Waddoups, wants to have all drinks mixed in a back room or behind a barrier and out of the view of children because it will tempt the little lads and lasses into drinking, under age. There has been much said about this in the local Salt Lake Tribune Public Forum. My favorite points have been:

1. Over Eating is as dangerous as drinking and can have the same deadly effect. We should make sure our children do not witness obese people eating and enjoying their food as the may become obese.
2. Tavern owners should have armed guards protecting the alcohol and making sure no one is seen enjoying themselves (this is sarcasm of course)
3. Our liquor laws are driving away jobs. Companies decline to locate here because there is a perception you cannot get a drink. Tourism suffers because folks choose Colorado instead of the greatest snow on earth.

There has been no documentation that any of our current controls curb alcohol abuse. In some cases our laws have been determined unconstitutional. However, tavern owners and retailers are hesitant to aggressively challenge liquor laws because the Alcohol Control Commission has a history of being heavy handed and vindictive.

I am of the opinion that liquor laws should have controls that reduce opportunity of under age drinking. Good ID laws are effective. I also believe we have a public health concern regarding over consumption and drunk driving. However I do not think any of our current archaic controls resolve any of the above problems. Liquor stores, as I said before, are about revenue. Private clubs are about making it difficult for all who want to drink. The Zion Curtain is about shielding the faithful and those who might be lured away from the temptation and offensiveness of drink.

Abortion and Sex Education!

I am not going to spend a lot of time on this hot button issue. It is noteworthy that in this country there has not been a significant change to the issue since Roe V. Wade. I am a liberal and a firm believer that a woman should have the right to choose and that this country's male dominated political system has no business determining what her reproductive rights should be. I am not pro abortion. I don't think anybody is.

Our legislature has announced it will not seek further bans on abortion, this year, because it knows the expensive legal fight in poor economic conditions will be unpopular. It has proposed that a legal defense fund be set up to pay for a future legal fight, maybe next year.

Most adults reading this post know how human life originates. However, in this state, we reject any comprehensive sex education that teaches our youth about the use of birth control or barriers to disease contraction. We prefer the abstinence only approach believing that the parents of the children should be the ones to determine their level of education. Unfortunately this method is flawed on several accounts:

1. Studies have show that abstinence only education is no more effective at preventing unplanned pregnancy than comprehensive sex ed.
2. Teens who engage in abstinence pledges have premarital sex at the same rate as Teens who have had comprehensive sex ed but fail to use any type of disease barrier at a higher rate than their educated contemporaries.
3. We know from the 80's that "just say no" is a great slogan but a poor public policy.
4. Parents are not doctors or nurses or otherwise educated on public health issues and pass on urban legends to their children.
5. Education is important because my Daughter may date your son. I don't know what you have told him and you don't know what I have told my daughter. Conversely you don't know what they have learned from their friends.

I believe the Salt Lake Tribune's opinion on this matter is correct. Educate teens and parents and we will dramatically reduce the instance of abortion.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_11474583

I think we are on the precipices of a new era in politics; one were science and fact not religious piety and superstition will set public policy. I am also a firm believer that is how we stay free. I am hoping more folks "just say no" to laws that are written to limit rights in the name of morality but have no real effect on the problem or make the problem worse by putting it behind a Zion Curtain.