Happy Halloween

I kinda like this song on its own merit, not just because it's Halloween. I always forget about it until a day or two before, and then I'll listen to it a dozen or so times.

This week I have watched Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, 1408, House on Haunted Hill, and American Werewolf in London. Tonight may or may not be Evil Dead. I think that was one I watched when I was way too young and impressionable, but I don't remember anything now. I didn't realize it was rated NC-17 for gore, so I'm a little nervous about it. My brother went through a horror/slasher movie phase when he was a teen and I was like eight, so I saw pretty much EVERYTHING growing up. No wonder why I'm so well adjusted.

Is there a better holiday than Halloween? No. The answer is no. I went to a super crappy haunted mansion last Friday. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to go to more. It made me miss Knott's Scary Farm. I don't care how crowded it gets, you basically get the benefit of going through like 10 different haunted houses for like $30, whereas here you get one for like $15 a pop. And every year they have at least one or two that are amazing.

Because I can't embed the video, here is the Thriller link, and below is a remake. I'll bet you can hardly tell the difference between the two:

Freakin' Indians. So weird.

I read Salem's Lot, and now I'm working on reading Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House. It's what all the movies are based on, but it feels a little slow to be honest. Salem's Lot was pretty awesome though. Although this first paragraph from The Haunting of Hill House is pretty sweet:

No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream. Hill House, not sane, stood by itself against its hills, holding darkness within; it had stood so for eighty years and might stand for eighty more. Within, walls continued upright, bricks met neatly, floors were firm, and doors were sensibly shut; silence lay steadily against the wood and stone of Hill House, and whatever walked there, walked alone.

Here is one of my favorite ghost stories, The Upper Berth. I found it years ago in Roald Dahl's Book of Ghost Stories. That's probably my favorite book filled purely with ghost stories that I ever read. Although in that book he doesn't author any, he's only compiling. Have you read any of his short stories? They're kind of twisted, and a lot of times have open-endings. They're awesome. Can't believe that guy was so successful with children's books.

And finally, let's close with this kind of odd poem by Wallace Stevens, The Emperor of Ice Cream. Give me some interpretations people, what do you think it's about?

Call the roller of big cigars,
The muscular one, and bid him whip
In kitchen cups concupiscent curds.
Let the wenches dawdle in such dress
As they are used to wear, and let the boys
Bring flowers in last month's newspapers.
Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.

Take from the dresser of deal,
Lacking the three glass knobs, that sheet
On which she embroidered fantails once
And spread it so as to cover her face.
If her horny feet protrude, they come
To show how cold she is, and dumb.
Let the lamp affix its beam.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.

Happy Halloween everyone.

Presidential Polling

I was hoping to include a link to a Real Clear Politics article talking about all the volatility represented in the different polls and why that's the case, but it seems that the permalink isn't working anymore and I have no way of digging it up again. It provided a great explanation about how all of the polls can have such varied discrepencies, but still purport to have 95% confidence that their numbers are correct.

In part it represents the volatility of the electorate, but at the same time it is also representative of the approach that each pollster uses in trying to decipher the composition of the American electorate.

On their website they list a number of different polls, with their margins of error, and then average those numbers out across them all. For example, the Pew poll showed 53% for Obama, 38% for McCain, with a margin of error of 3.5%. What that means is that they are 95% confident that the real averages of the population are within 3.5% of those numbers. So McCain's real average is somewhere between 34.5%-41.5%, but the RCP average for all polls shows that McCain has 44% of the support of the American people, well outside of the confidence range that the Pew poll suggests.

What it really means is that no one is really sure what the American public is going to look like come November 4th, if Democrats make up 40, 50, or 60% of the people in this country with a political party affiliation, and then what percentage of those people will actually come out to vote. Each poll has their own suspicions of what those numbers will be, and then based on those assumptions, get a stratified random sample to get a representative group to make predictions about the population as a whole.

So whatever the polls may suggest, we really don't know until the outcome is here. That's part of the reason why exit polls in 2004 had Kerry way out in front, but were way off in the actual outcome of the election. Take heart. Any one of these races are still up for grabs.

You know, that's actually a pretty damn good summary of what was in that article.

Proposition 8 - Super Deluxe Links Edition

For more of why I support Proposition 8, you can visit here, and here.

This is going to be a super long post, and hopefully I won't end up spending the whole afternoon on it because I do have a test I have to finish up by tonight. I'm also hoping that any commentary will be coming from other people.

It amazes me what comes from the opposition to Prop 8. I emailed some of you for some of your personal encounters with people opposing the amendment. I do appreciate your responses. How does one side argue that Prop 8 = Prop Hate, and that anyone opposing same-sex marriage (SSM) is intolerant, and then turn around and berate us for not allowing others to live as they choose, behave as they want, or believe as they see fit? Don't they see the hypocrisy in that?

Unfortunately, the small-minded backlash is not limited to just the opposition. I was going to do this piece with the intention of highlighting how overwhelmingly aggressive Anti-Prop 8 people have been, but the last couple of days there have been a number of headlines showing that a lot of supporters for Prop 8 are just as obnoxious.

In any case, I did want to include some links that were forwarded to me from people with personal connections to everyone who bothers reading this blog (I think, at least):

• One girl's experience from the Pierside ward with her lesbian neighbor.
• A couple of people forwarded this story to me from Sundstrom's who now live in Northern California. That link is actually to the Mercury News up in San Jose.
• This is Brenna's experience last week with Prop 8 opposition.
• This blogger documents his Prop 8 experiences.
• This story from the San Francisco Chronicle talks about the protestors against Prop 8 demonstrated outside the Oakland Temple.

There are a number of others, but I didn't want to have to cut and paste all the stories. Next up are some additional perspectives on Proposition 8:

• This comes from Carolyn who used to go to the Newport Coast ward. I never really knew her very well, but she's a sharp cookie. She's a BYU law grad and actually gives her legal arguments for why she supports Proposition 8. It's actually really interesting, even if you're not a law person. Very well articulated.
• One person talking about the oft-repeated argument of how SSM affects your traditional marriage.
• My boy Orson Scott Card giving his take on SSM. Incidentally, that website, Mormon Times, is kind of interesting. Gives LDS news without being totally churchy, and essays on different topics.
• This story from NPR is one of my favorite summaries of the clash between freedom of religion and same-sex liberties, and how religion invariably loses that battle in the eyes of the law. Really one of the better summaries of this argument I've seen anywhere.
• Townhall writer Dennis Prager talks about the "hate" fueling Proposition 8 support.
• I liked this article from some random website. There are certain people who came that Mormons are overstepping their boundaries by entering into this political debate, and this op-ed address this argument well.

I was going to post a bunch of the stuff coming out of the Daily Kos, but they're hardly worth addressing, unless you're going to do it like this guy does on his blog. I just don't care for the Kos kids. It's the popular blog that's pretty representative of the liberal-wing of politics of this country. I'm just so grateful that the conservative voices of this country don't reflect the vulgarity, crassness, and vitriol that comes out of the left. Mind you, that's the popular news blog of the left, not just a bunch of crazy far-left radicals that represent only the fringe.

Just a couple of more thoughts from me before I wrap up this post:

I saw a BYU Forum yesterday with Roger Brown of Princeton University. He has a law degree from Harvard, Masters in Theology, and PhD in Philosophy from some other top-notch schools. The guy was so brilliant. A lot of his thoughts were over my head and I consider myself pretty able to keep up with academic arguments, but he was way beyond me. From what I was able to grasp, he brought up some really good points:

• Somehow, supporters of traditional marriage don't argue their side as vehemently as the opposition does. I forget what reasons he had listed as to why that's the case, but it's just as important that we assert our stances with respect to these issues. Now that I can't seem to recall what he said exactly, that point hardly seems profound at all.
• He mentioned the argument that some people think we should remove the word "marriage" from the government/legal lexicon because it's primarily a religious institution anyway. Some people want to give it the status of something like baptism, communion, etc, but the problem with this, he pointed out, is that it is both in the best interest of government and society as a whole to promote marriage. This is why throughout all of history, and in ever government that has ever existed, something akin to marriage has been endorsed, and even promoted, by the government because family stability contributes to the stability of the government. What happens when the family disintegrates is that the poor are those that receive the first and most exposure to the consequences of unstable families. Without stable families, people rely on outside entities for their support, i.e. government needs to intervene, and therefore government is required to expand. For this reason, it is even more imperative that we promote traditional marriage as the only legitmate form of union recognized by the law.
• He spoke at length about the philosophy of marriage. This part was where he started to lose me, but he talked about how there are two schools of thought about mind and body, essentially that one considers each to be separate, and the other advocating a communion of the two. Which line of thinking you endorse also affects the way you would perceive marriage. If spirt and body are one, then marriage as it's talked about biblically is the literal union of two people cleaving unto one another, flesh becoming as one. In intercourse, this occurs in a way that can only really exist between two people of the opposite sex, especially in the creation of life. Marriage is the fully literal manifestation of two people becoming one, and that has been, and will always be, the intention of the institution.
• Dave shared with me some statistics he heard at a symposium on Proposition 8 last Friday at Chapman law school. Although I don't doubt the statistics he shared with me, I don't have access to those numbers so I won't reference them here. However, I was able to find a number of other findings from other scientific journals that reveal the alarming patterns of promiscuity among people in same sex relationships.
• From the Journal of Homosexuality - in 1978, two homosexual doctors found that 83% of gay males have 50+ different sexual partners in their lifetime, 41% had 500+, and 26% had 1000+ different partners.
• From the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prominent scientific journals in the whole world, gay men were averaging 110+ different partners a year.
• Two homosexual researchers found that given enough time, the cheating ratio of committed gay men approaches 100%, from the book After the Ball.
• I haven't found this statistic, but I heard mentioned that 95% of all same-sex couples who plan on getting married, do so with the intention of having an open marriage.

Whatever myths people want to believe about same-sex relationships, there is no truth at all to the idea that they want to get married for the purpose of staying in a monogamous relationship. The numbers don't lie, and I would link you to those sources, but they're in scholarly journals and not accessible via the internet. Marriage is about the family, and the family doesn't work without stability. While these numbers may not be entirely representative of lesbian couples, it is undoubtedly true for gay men, and they can in no way offer the kind of environment optimal for child-rearing. While 50% divorce rates are alarming, 100% chances failure are surely worse.

If you haven't already donated to support the campaign, you can through this website.

I'm hoping this will be the last time I post about this until the proposition passes next week.

Art Institute of Chicago

I know...supposed to post about the family, right? I'm kind of sick of it. I did some calls this afternoon for Prop 8, but then I got distracted because I need my laptop to do it, and pretty much when it comes to having internet access there is no end to the amount of distraction I can find online. I'll have to go to the call center if I really want to make any real headway on that whole thing. So the bottom line is...I just don't feel like writing or talking about it anymore. Or at least right now.

I feel like talking about art right now. I was going to put in some more pics, but I can't really find much. Next time I'm in Chicago I'm not going to the Institute on a weekend. Way too many people, plus I'm sure the marathon traffic made it a lot more crazy than it might be otherwise.

Anyway, I had higher hopes than what we ended up getting, but it was still really cool. Like I mentioned before, they didn't have out all the Van Gogh and Picasso pieces that are prominent features of their collection, but we still saw some amazing work.

It always seems like the photography exhibits are what I always enjoy the most. I wish I had written down the names of the specific pieces, but some of the photographers that had some really cool stuff on display were Robert Frank and Gilles Peress. Gilles has a photo taken in Ireland during some of the tumultuous times of the last couple decades. It's a mother hitting her daughter, and their motion is blurred, but the best part is that on the television in the background captures a frightened women's expression and it's just perfect. It looks like that woman's face was inserted in there just to complete the photograph, but the whole thing perfectly captures the tension.

I guess Robert Frank was commissioned to do some photography while travelling the United States. I can't find my favorite pieces, but this one is really cool:

The cowboy is actually in France, during the 50s or 60s, and it's in starkcontrast to the Cold War period with America's place in the world, just because of how at ease the cowboy looks in his surroundings.

Without talking about every piece I saw let me just mention a few more of the artists' work that I liked by name, and then feature my favorite pieces to wrap up.

I like Lichtenstein's comic-booky art, although they didn't really seem to have anything very cool of his there. Sol Lewitt had some cool pieces I'm sure, but even after looking online at some stuff shown on the web I can't remember what it was exactly that I liked. They had some JL Gerome paintings, who also happens to have done one of my favorites, Pygmalion and Galatea. I like that one as much for the painting as for the story. So it was cool to see some of his actual art, Chariot Races, I think it was called, or some derivative of that. Roger Brown had some nice stuff, but it's very Thomas Cole-y. And of course there are the big ones that are still on display, like Grant Wood's American Gothic, portraying President Eyring carrying a pitchfork with his wife, Hopper's Nighthawks, and Seurat's featured here below:

Marth Rosler had a really cool exhibit, Bringing the War Home. It's photocollage of images from scenes you would find in Good Housekeeping coupled with actual wartime photography. What we saw featured images from Vietname, but I guess she has reprised the exhibit to focus on the current conflict in Iraq. I thought it was a really cool pairing, and emphasizes how the Vietnam war in particular was the first war that American civilians were able to experience at a more personal level with the amount of media coverage there was at the time.

My favorite pieces by far came from the modern art section, which makes me doubly sad because that is the wing of the museum that they will be opening up in the winter, so I'm sure we missed out on a lot more good stuff that they have.

Here are my two favorite pieces:

This first one is Ivan Albright's Nightlife. I loved the colors that were in it. Why is it that art before the last century doesn't seem as vibrant? I think it gets movement pretty well, but I really like the facial expressions in the painting, and the color seems to get at the mood, which I think is kind of sultry. Very cool. And this one was by far and away my favorite piece in the museum:

I know exactly what you're thinking: how can someone so handsome look so grotesque? I was inspired by the painting. It was done in the 40s or 50s for the film version of the book, The Picture of Dorian Gray. It's one of my favorite books ever, and it's written by Oscar Wilde. It's the only novel he ever wrote, but it's very creepy and when you see this painting, it is very alarming. Seriously. You walk around the corner and then it's this 6' ugly portrait and it's awesome. I guess the artist was known for his macabre work and that's why he was commissioned to do it in the first place. Apparently, the film is in black and white until the painting gets on screen, and it's the only thing in color to exaggerate the hideous nature of Dorian's soul. Very, very cool stuff. Anyway, Dave aptly named the photo Dorian Silva. It's available for a small fee. Don't let anyone tell you that the book is called Portrait of Dorian Gray. It's picture.

Well...looking at these images again makes me want to go to more museums. I need to hit up New York and DC.

Hey Ya'll

Sorry I've been a little MIA the last couple of days. I've been a little overwhelmed with school, but I think I might get a stay of execution on at least doing the intro to my thesis because I'm changing my research question. So that buys me at least a few days. Phew! I really thought I was gonna die today though. I prepared my Sunday School lesson all morning, took my stats test that took me 3 hours, graded a bunch of crappy projects for a class I TA for, and read even more about sexual harassment. Just glad that I was able to buy myself more time. Part of me hates school, and another part of me really digs on it. I'll tell you one thing, I really do feel like I'm in the right place and doing the right things. Not that it's necessarily my favorite option, but it's an enormous blessing feeling like you're doing what you're supposed to be doing. I really think I my life is moving in a direction that I want it to go, and I think that's just an enormous blessing.

I'll have some more marriage stuff tomorrow. California members attending BYU have also been asked to participate in the phone calling and informing people about Prop 8, as well as urging them to get out and vote. I've gotten some good information back from you guys about Prop 8 stories so I'll try and put that together tomorrow.

I'm tentatively planning on doing the LA marathon with Greg, but training in the winter has me kind of worried. So we'll see. I finally ran on Thursday - first time since the marathon and my calf is still bothering me. I could start out alright, but I couldn't do more than 20 minutes running at a normal pace. Yesterday I ran again and this time the soreness came on sooner. I might have exacerbated the calf problem though by jumping rope yesterday too. First time in months, and so help me, I love it! I'm working on the matador move, and then the cradle. I still suck at doing the double-under. I just can't get the timing right.

Anyway, I found this sweet video on YouTube. It's pretty sick.

I saw Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist tonight. A lot more sexually oriented than I had thought it would be. Still kinda funny though. Also saw Run Fatboy Run, last week. Which reminds me...

So in that particular movie, they make the marathon out to be something so intimidating and lofty, and I really don't think it is. Maybe I'm only saying that because I'm on the other side of it now, but really...I truly, whole-heartedly believe that ANYONE can run one. I didn't send out that email and blog because I think I'm so great, extraordinary, or above-average because I ran a marathon. I think it's one of those things that's totally within all of our grasps, but we just don't realize it because we set it up so high. That was just a side thought...Well...gonna go practice the matador for a few minutes before I go to bed.

In the words of my favorite lunchtime radio talk show guy, Stephen A. Smith, who's not even on anymore, and who I couldn't listen to anyway...Be blessed ya'll! Peace!

Reuven's Anti-Mormon Comment

If you follow the link that he posted on my previous post, Anti-Prop 8=Anti-Mormon, it's really not so much in opposition to Proposition 8 as it is advocating being anti-Mormon. Thanks, Reuven for proving my point exactly. Here's the link, and here's what you'll find:

DEAR CHRISTIANS:
VOTE NO ON CALFORNIA PROPOSITION 8

Be very careful about voting on CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8. We can win a battle and lose the war.
The "yes on 8" movement is being funded almost entirely by the Mormon Church. Money is coming from outside California by the millions.
This is an attempt by the Mormons to win over evangelicals and other Christians. We may feel we have common ground on this issue.
But at what cost?
You wouldn't advise your children to take candy from a stranger.
Don't accept help from a group with a hidden agenda: To legitimize beliefs that we believe are outside of Christianity.
Please don't take this as an attack on individual Mormons, or their rights to hold Mormon beliefs, but on the Church's actions.
REJECT assistance from the LDS Mormon Church on matters of religious law and interpretation. It's OK to work with another religion to feed and clothe the hungry. It's not OK to accept religious law--even if you may agree with it--from a religion that proselytizes ideas that are outside of our Holy Scriptures.
VOTE NO ON 8. MAKE THEIR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS GO TO WASTE. Discourage them from performing deceptive outreach programs in the future.
Jesus' primary message, that he repeats over and over, is to uplift the weak, feed the hungry, clothe the needy. Most of their money should be going, as ours does, to feed and clothe the needy.
We can address same sex marriage later, on our own terms. The future of Christianity in the United States is more important.
Please vote NO on CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8. DON'T ACCEPT "CANDY" FROM "STRANGERS"
When they come for YOU, who will be left to speak out?
Yours in Christ,

REVEREND Joe BaytzimChurch of Eliyahu Ha-Navi, Orange, California And for slanderers [sectarians] let there be no hope, and may all the evil in an instant be destroyed and all Thy enemies be cut down swiftly; and the evil ones uproot and break and destroy and humble soon in out days. Blessed art You, LORD, who breaks down ememies and humbles sinners.

Anti-Prop 8 = Anti-Mormon?

Found this link through Hugh's blog. This comes from the Article VI Blog, and mentions all of the opposition to the church from anti-prop 8 people. It is truly disgusting. From the Daily KOS post cited in the article:

But when the church and its members invest millions of dollars in an attempt to write discrimination into my state's constitution and divorce my friend Brian against his will, there will be hell to pay.

So what am I asking you to do?

Some distributed research.

There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here's a mirror with slightly worse formatting.

Here's what I'm asking for:

This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign--donors to the tune of at least $1,000 dollars. And, as you can see, there are a lot of them. It also indicates if they're Mormon or not.

If you're interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality, here's how you can help:

Find us some ammo.

Use any LEGAL tool at your disposal. Use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious. If so, we have a legitimate case to make the Yes on 8 campaign return their contributions, or face a bunch of negative publicity.

There are a crapload of donors on this list--so please focus on the larger ones first. $5,000 or more is a good threshold to start with.

Feel free to use Lexis-Nexis searches as well for anything useful, especially given that these people are using "morality" as their primary motivation to support Prop 8...if you find anything that belies that in any way...well, you know what to do.

Here's the bottom line for me: if someone is willing to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign to take away legal rights from some very dear friends of mine, they had damn well make sure their lives are beyond scrutiny--because I, for one, won't take it lying down.

This one is for Brian and the millions like him all across the nation.

It's nothing short of despicable.

Sarah Palin Is Getting Good

She is getting better and better. I liked her before, but she is really cleaning up now. It seems that the McCain camp has finally let her loose, and I think it's coming with some great benefits. The latest from Sarah on the stump:



The SNL videos aren't loading for some reason, but Alec is right - Sarah is hot. She looked even better than Tina. And Tina is one of my top 3 celebrity crushes, despite her politics.

Why I Support Prop 8

I got this comment in response to the Prop 8 post from a couple of days ago. I'm posting it here so that maybe I can get some discussion from the peanut gallery after I write some of my own thoughts down here, because I know that most of my readers adopt a similar perspective on this issue and can probably articulate some of these points better than I can, or may have an approach that is better than my own. I appreciate the comment and that it seems to be coming in the spirit of dialogue, and not out of contention. That's nice because a lot of what we've been encountering as supporters of traditional marriage is name calling in its most mild form, and property damage in some of the more extreme cases.

Let me start off with a disclaimer - these are strictly my views and not to be interpreted as church doctrine, or representative of the views of all members of the church. Just little ol' me. This is really just my interpretation, and some of the conclusions that I've come to through my own study and my understanding of what it is that the church teaches, combined with my personal opinions on the topic.

Hi, thanks for your post. In the spirit of open dialogue (and not attack), can I ask you a couple of questions? First of all, I am Christian, and married, and I support gay marriage. I'm wondering what it is, specifically, about gay marriage that puts my own marriage into question? If my friend Chris could marry his boyfriend, how would that make my marriage less valid or sacred? How would that diminish my own vows or my commitment to my husband and to God? The notion that allowing gay marriage would somehow put "traditional" marriage in question seems to lie at the heart of this issue, and I'm honestly wondering why you think that's so. I sincerely doubt that gay couples would come knocking on temple doors demanding to be sealed in droves (the priesthood ban on women has been what's kept me away from the LDS church, and I know many women who feel the same way--most people don't go where they know they're not welcome); and even if they did, Mormons need not perform the service if it's against the plan.

I also watched the video you posted (I admit that I haven't followed all your other links, as I'm on my lunch break and have limited time). It seems like the book the kindergartner came home with simply presented the fact that some kids might have two mothers or two fathers. This is already a reality: it's not contingent on legal marriage. Gay couples are having kids, and those kids go to schools. I don't want to here discuss whether or not gay couples should have kids; the fact is that these kids exist. You say that you support (or tolerate) civil unions because those unions extend all the legal rights of marriage to gay couples. If you feel that way, it seems like you're not in favor of open discrimination against homosexuals--perhaps least of all against their kids (who may be considered innocent at this point). If you really feel that way, are you in favor of demonizing these kids' families in their own schools? Are you in favor of just simply remaining silent about the fact that kids come from different backgrounds? This book did not even touch on explicit sexual behavior, or gay marriage, but simply presented the fact that some kids might come from different families. Parents can then discuss whether or not those families are in
accordance with their own beliefs.

Once again, I appreciate your post and am posing these questions in an open spirit of dialogue.

First, I need to start off by saying that I'm always very leary of what comes across fron "anonymous" commenters. I know you closed with your name, which I appreciate, but at the same time, anybody can post as anonymous and then say whatever they want without any real accountability. So that usually makes me leary to respond to Anonymous, but I'm trusting that this is out of a real desire to understand where I'm coming from on this issue.

Second, it seems that both of us are coming from clearly defined positions, so I'm not going to try and convince you of anything, and in turn, don't expect to have me be easily swayed. This is just an explanation, and to be honest, I don't think I can fully articulate all the reasons that I feel this way. There are certain aspects of the support for same-sex marriage (to be referred to hereafter as SSM) that I can really sympathize with. But I think there can be some good to be had from some discussion, even if the only conclusion that we can come to is agree to disagree.

Okay...so here goes. I'm not sure how I should approach the question of how allowing SSM renders traditional marriage meaningless. I've posted a number of links already on this topic. I'll start first with some additional academic stuff beyond what I've posted previously.

For an academic viewpoint, try this Stanley Kurtz article on Gay Marriage. He talks about how opening up marriage definitions to include same-sex couples removes sexual taboos from within our society that promote the ethos of monogamy. He says it much better than I can. In this article, Point of No Return, he comments on the reasons in support of a federal marriage amendment and more specifically about how redefining marriage undermines monogamous relationships. In another article on Love and Marriage, Kurtz points out:

A world of same-sex marriages is a world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates. The divorce revolution, the sexual revolution, and the homosexual-rights movement all emerged simultaneously in the sixties, and the entirely related advances in these three social movements explain why we are on the verge of legalized same-sex marriage today. Again, you can argue that the gains in freedom and tolerance are worth it, but don't try tell me that the costs to marriage — and to children — of our new cultural mode aren't real.

And later in the article he talks about how the institution of marriage helps promote monogamous relationships by virtue of the man-woman dynamic:

It is the unique sexual dynamic between men and women that domesticates men. Marriage ratifies and reinforces the basic effect, but cannot create it out of whole cloth. The ethos of marriage builds upon a series of shared and pre-existing expectations about the way a man ought to treat a woman — because of her sexual vulnerability, and because of her need for support as a mother.

So contrary to Rauch's hopes, simply redefining the union of two men as a "marriage" will not bring those social expectations into play. Whether the relationship is called marriage or not, if a man sleeps around on another man, or fails to offer him financial support, he will not be condemned as a cad or a shirker. Indeed, a substantial number of gay couples openly reject such expectations and declare that their interest in marriage is confined to its economic and legal benefits. More than this, many homosexuals look to same-sex marriage as an opportunity to intentionally subvert the ethic of sexual fidelity and ethos of sexual complementarity that they consider keys to the "oppressiveness" of marriage itself. So contrary to Rauch's soothing
promises, same-sex marriage will seriously undermine the ethos of marriage, without significantly stabilizing gay relationships in return.

The truth is, but for a few exceptional conservatives such a Rauch and Sullivan (and in some ways, even for them), the movement for gay marriage has little to do with an expanded regard for marriage and everything to do with an attempt to gain social approval for homosexuality. In effect, marriage is being "used" to send a message that has little to do with the institution itself — without anyone having honestly faced the real and harmful consequences to children and families of the change.

That's why advocates of gay marriage and opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment want to talk about civil rights, states rights, federalism, even love — anything but sex. Marriage springs directly from the ethos of heterosexual sex. Once marriage loses its connection to the differences between men and women, it can only start to resemble a glorified and slightly less temporary version of hooking up. And in the end, it is children who will pay the price.

Opening up the definition of marriage to include SSM erodes the meaning of the institution. Some supporters of SSM try and point to things like rising divorce rates and adultery among heterosexual couples as a reason to allow SSM, without realizing that what they're really saying with comments like that is that marriage doesn't work anyway, so why not just allow for SSM? I don't know, but doesn't that feel like the world's weakest argument for SSM? It can't get any worse, right? so stop excluding them and let them join in. I'm sorry, but that's so weak.

Listen, obviously growing acceptance of homosexuality is not the only reason that the traditional family in modern society has been weakened. As Kurtz points out, up until the sexual revolution of the 60's, we had a pretty good system going that began to distintegrate with the introduction of a number of lascivious practices that undermine the traditional family.

As Greg mentioned in his comments - first jokingly, and later more seriously - it's really about the children and the family. And you can try and dissociate SSM and child-bearing/rearing all you want, but the fact is that marriage is about the family. It's about procreating, and raising children in stable environments with two parents that can provide for them. As it states in the Proclamation on the Family:

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose...

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily
responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

There is something very important about our gender, and the roles that gender force us into. I'm not strongly endorsing a particular role for women, and the church doesn't either. You mentioned in your comment that women stay away from our church because they're not allowed to have the priesthood, but obviously you don't understand the doctrine that we have that is based on the family. As it mentions in the excerpt above, men and women are to "help one another as equal partners." Equal, in every sense of the word. When God created Adam, he needed a help "meet," which literally means equal. I think creating her by using his rib is very important symbol of the type of relationship that they were to have - side by side, 100% partners in every thing that they would ever do. God instituted and ordained marriage using them as the template. Thus, the commandment, be fruitful and multiply and replenis the earth.

In order to obtain the fullest rights and privileges accorded through the Priesthood, it must come through marriage. It is an interdependent power that is only fully maximized through the union of man and woman. Women, through their sheer physiology have rights and responsibilities that are given to them because of their ability to bear children. Regardless of whether or not they have the priesthood, they have responsibilities that require them to magnify beyond themselves. Men do not have that, so the priesthood provides for that opportunity, but I digress.

Gender is an absolutely vital characteristic of each of our identities. Within traditional families, ideally, children can look to their parents for guidance on the gender roles they are to assume, and also find instruction on what it is that they are to look for. Girls learn from their mothers about what it means to be a woman; boys learn about being a man from their fathers.

There is something inherently unique that only a mother (and only a father) can pass on to their children. SSM does not provide for that. There is just no way that a mother (or two) is fully equipped to assume the same role as a father in a boy's life. Even outside of the church everyone recognizes there are some clear distinctions between men and women. These might some like trivial points, but it means everything in helping children to learn who it is that they are to become, and the type of person that they are to look for when they are ready to get married themselves.

As for the second paragraph, I think Greg cleared up some of my own thoughts on that book. Obviously they're not going to talk graphically to kindergardners about sexuality. They don't do that now as it is. The teachings about same-sex relationships will start mild, and then become progressively more explicit. It seems innocent enough, but the model that the two princes book promotes is atypical. It's not the ideal, and it's not a lifestyle that I endorse.

No, of course I'm not for demonizing those families, but they are the exception and not the rule. For the reasons mentioned above, I believe the traditional family to be the only way to go, but allowing for SSM normalizes a behavior that I do not condone. Legalizing SSM forces the issue into public schools, and forces children to listen to teachings that I do not endorse. I believe we need to not permit SSM, and allow me use my own discretion for teaching my children about alternative lifestyles and families.

I'm not going to touch on every point that you brought up in your comments because I feel like the other post addresses much of those issues. What that post failed to resolve, hopefully I've been able to clarify a little bit more. A couple of other points I wanted to make though:

• Of course women are welcome in our church. We have the largest women's organization in the world in the Relief Society. And I'll bet that in our church women have more opportunities for leadership responsibilities and service than they do anywhere else. I think I can almost guarantee that.
• If a woman doesn't want to join our church because she can't hold the priesthood, then she obviously does not understand the doctrine of the priesthood. As I mentioned previously, in its highest capacity, the priesthood cannot be utilized without the union of man and woman. It is, as I said, interdependent.
• This is the Church official statement on the issue. It's long, but brings up a lot of good points from that perspective.

The links that I provided on this and the previous post I think illustrate much more clearly many of my own thoughts and feelings on SSM. As long as this post may be, it does not fully express the opinions of the author. If there is anything that still doesn't seem clear, please let me know. And if anybody else wants to chime in and help further clarify anything, or if I may have overlooked anything, please make a comment.

I'm Not The Kind Of Girl Who Likes To Be Alone

This is a potpourri post, but I was listening to that Janet Jackson song on the way in to school this morning. Can anyone name that tune?

• "Laughter is a profession of faith." That's a line from Peter Robinson in this great book that I'm reading on Ronald Reagan, How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. So true.
• You know what I'm missing about California right now? KROQ. The music, but what I'm thinking of right now is Ralph's Movie Beat. He's mostly how I find out about independent movies, but even if I knew about the movies, there aren't any indy theaters nearby. All the rock radio stations play stuff like you'd find in the 909. I hate it. It's like everything sounds like Nickelback or Lifehouse, which is totally obnoxious. The best radio station in Utah? 91.7, KOHS. That's right, Orem High. They don't have commercials, and it explores more music than the other stations here. Plus it's run by high school kids. That's awesome. And I'm also missing listening to Hugh Hewitt. There's a lot of stuff about it that miss. Thank goodness for podcasts. I'm gonna have to start taking advantage of those.
• I'm tentatively thinking about running the LA marathon. It's on President's day, in about 17-18 weeks. Considering I'm already in marathon shape, I should be okay. But then again, I'd have to train through the winter here in Utah. We'll see. Any takers?
• I finally got a calling yesterday. I was afraid it was going to be FHE coordinator. I hate that calling, or maybe I'm just tired of it. I had it for the last 2 years up here at BYU, and I hate organizing other people's fun. Nope...Gospel Doctrine! I'm really excited about it. And I think it will be especially fun in a BYU ward where everybody is a church all-star and has great insights into the gospel. You know what's funny? Now when I write elders quorum pres, exec secretary, teaching development coordinator, under past callings on getting to know you sheets, the bishopric looks me at me totally differently, and are like oh...we need to put you to work. I just thought it was funny because I saw the councilor's reaction when he saw my sheet, and he seemed surprised. What? Aren't I just oozing with spirituality? Can't you tell by the halo around my head? But really...should it make any difference? No, of course not, but people will always automatically make certain assumptions because of those titles. I could have been terrible at fulfilling those callings. You never know.
• We have these weekly forums in my program where professors come in and talk about their research, and they talk about the most interesting stuff. And they always have a gospel orientation, which is really cool. Last week we had a professor who spoke about genetics and environment, and how those things shape people. They found recently that there are certain genes within people that show a genetic link to depression, meaning that some people are more predisposed to experience periods of clinical depression when suffering through destabilizing situations. Some people are more naturally resilient than others, and this can have pros and cons about it. More interestinglty, however, was when he was sharing about a study of rhesus monkeys with offspring that are not their own. It should that offspring were prone to more fits of aggression when placed with a non-biological mother. The implication of this being that mothers are genetically composed to know how to better care for children that are their biological offspring than those who aren't. Expounding upon that, he then started to talk about how we have certain predispositions toward acting in certain ways, and when a parent, or anybody really, corrects us it actually alters the hard-wiring in our brains. And then we started to talk about whether or not it's possible to pass down those genetic alterations gained through experience. I guess it's called epigenetics. Something like that. Really interesting stuff.
• I know I'm a big time BYU fan (wink), but I didn't really expect them to go undefeated this season. They've looked very unimpressive on the road, and they haven't been anybody good this season. There's difference between good and big name. And to be perfectly honest, we were overrated. I was looking at the top 10 list before we lost and I'm sure that were not even in the same league as most of those teams. You kidding me? We were rated above Georgia? Not even close. Sure, we can beat up on the bottom teams of other conferences, but no way we can hang with the SEC or Big 10 big boys. No way. Those are practically pro teams.
• SO GLAD the Rays beat the Red Sox yesterday.
• I had to look twice at the Raiders score yesterday - 16-13. Wait...how did we get more points than the other guys? That NEVER happens.
• Even people in Utah are calling California residents about Proposition 8. Crazy.
• The more I read Conference talks, or even go to church, the more hope I feel. Not that I was doubting, but this really is the time when God's kingdom will not be removed from the earth again. Kind of comforting.

I think that's enough for one potpourri post. Peace ya'll.

Remember Iraq?

So my favorite author over at National Review is one of five journalists who the State Department has flown out to Iraq to cover what is going on in the country. It's an unprecedented move by the government, and they're doing it because the news of the success of the recent events in Iraq is being underreported. He has written a five part series of columns, and they're very casual. It's interesting reading, I think at least. Here is the fifth piece in the series. From there you can access all of the others. If you're avoiding homework, or work work, like me, then this is a great thing to read.

Anyway, one thing that I thought was worth posting was this excerpt from the final column:

Our group makes its way to Camp Cropper, to tour a detention center. Must be a hellhole, huh? A nightmare of torture and depravity. Not really. The people who are detained here are very, very lucky detainees indeed — very, very lucky jihadists, or former jihadists.

They have the best medical care, the best nutrition — professionals in white coats looking after them. Diabetes seems to be a problem, and that is treated.

An assortment of classes is held. The detainees learn “life skills.” As the general in charge, Robert Kenyon, says, “Everyone gets a skill set” — they’ll need it on the outside. There are “Islamic discussion” sessions, too.

For some of these people, getting detained is the best break they ever had. They’re not hardcore al-Qaeda: They were in the wrong place, or did a job for money, or were a little screwed up (or a lot). Some detainees don’t want to leave, and, in fact, fear doing so. Some mothers say: “Won’t you keep my son for longer?”

Camp Cropper is very, very different from being captured by al-Qaeda — very different indeed. And the coalition makes a point of telling the detainees so.

When they leave, they get to choose Western or Arab clothing. And they get $25 to put in their pocket. They also have the instruction and care they received.

I think — for the thousandth time during this trip — has there ever been so benign a major power as the United States? Some people would regard that as naïve. I regard them as confused.

About 25 prisoners come in a day, and about 50 are released. Recidivism, we’re told, is very, very low.

I wish we all had any real grasp of what an amazing success these facts alone are. Do you have any idea what the recidivism rates are in the United States? 67.5%. It's amazing what they're doing over there in Iraq.

The most cited sentiment among the Iraqis is that they're trying to return to "normalcy." And they're doing it. While they are still in fact fighting a war over there, the US military is engaged in the propping up of a nation. Has that ever happened before in the history of the world? Has one world power gone through such an effort to build and fortify an independent nation? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. I think that line that Jay writes, "I think — for the thousandth time during this trip — has there ever been so benign a major power as the United States? Some people would regard that as naïve. I regard them as confused," is so perfectly true.

And I have to include this part too:

There are art classes, and we see what the students — students! — have produced. Some paintings are very nice. An officer tells us that the detainees tend to start off painting guns and the like. Gradually, the paintings get less violent and bleak, and more beautiful. A civilizing effect is seen.

One of the art instructors is a former detainee — a former detainee now on the camp’s payroll. Imagine that.

There are sewing classes too, and the instructor shows us what he calls “the graduation piece” — a camel, known as the Cropper Camel.

I ask again: Has there ever — ever — been a power so benign? What’s al-Qaeda’s equivalent of the Cropper Camel for their detainees — if they had detainees?

These are prisoners, people who have tried to murder our troops and innocent people, and they are providing them with art and sewing classes, teaching them life skills, and providing the best medical care in that part of the world. Can you even imagine? It is nothing short of a miracle what we're achieving over there, and I mean "we" as in Iraq, America, and the coalition of nations that are pitching in. Yes, it is a coalition. It is by no means a unilateral effort. And the common feeling among the people? There are significant improvements, but it can be gone in a flash if we don't withdraw responsibly. It only takes one suicide bomber to cause a major setback. One terrorist can really ruin your day.

Proposition 8

UPDATE: Here is an additional support on why I support Proposition 8.

I noticed that someone I know had put up a link for this website, No On 8. I went to the website and then started sifting through the Fact v. Fiction page.

Frankly, I'm kind of tired of this issue, and I'm not even living in California. Although I wasn't the recipient of phone calls, several other people I know get calls regularly about going to firesides, participating in fundraisers, and they're not even in the state. They're transplants here, but in an effort to be thorough people are still calling them. That's fine.

What kind of bothers me about are little things. For example, a person I know on Facebook put up a status message that said something to the effect of So and So hopes that everyone registered to vote to support Proposition 8. You know what? No. That's not the reason you should register to vote. You should register to vote because you believe it's your responsibility to take part in the democratic process because all of the issues are important. And this one especially so. But maybe I should be happy that at least something is waking up these people to become more active in the political community, so I shouldn't begrudge them their enthusiasm...even though it still bothers me a little bit. I just hope that those same people don't disappear once this proposition passes, or doesn't.

Anyway, I digress. The Fact v. Fiction page is interesting. I know that people already convinced of one position will point out that the other side is distorting the facts, but I'm going to bring up these points anyway (these are the "fiction" points directly from the No on 8 website):

• Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8. First, I think the wording on this particular point is bad. Even if you don't believe, it's a little bit tricky to figure out what it's actually saying. It's poorly worded. I don't know if that's on purpose or not. It is fact. If Proposition 8 doesn't pass, then the court mandated redefinition of marriage including all couples, regardless of orientation, will soon include teaching at the public school level. In fact, this has already started to happen. From the San Francisco Chronicle, Mayor Bloomberg officiated over a lesbian ceremony that was attended by a 1st grade class on a school sponsored field trip.
  
  In Massachusetts where marriage has already been redefined, the Anti-Defamation League stated in their amicus curae brief that: "From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief: “In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]“Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction.” [p 3]"
  
  Targeting public schools was among the first order of business once marriage had been legally redefined. One of the common responses is that even if public school curriculum teaches that parents can opt-out for their children, opponents to defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman are seeking to deny parents those rights.
  
  From an ACLU amicus curae brief: “Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]“This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief.” [p 18]“First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…Second, in contravention of the axiom that ‘the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas’’ [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students.” [pp 22-23]. Source - Protect Marriage.
  
• Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status. This is fact. I wish I could find the links, but there are a number of instances where this is the case. A Catholic adoption agency was forced to close its doors because they refused to allow gay parents to adopt children. In another instance, a Methodist church with an open area that refused to allow same sex marriage ceremony in its confines lost its tax-exempt status. A doctor who refused to perform in vitro fertilization procedures for a lesbian couple lost his license because the couple later sued him for discrimination, even when he had given them alternative doctors who would perform the procedure. A photographer who didn't want to photograph a same sex marriage ceremony for a gay couple was sued by that couple. This also occurred after this photographer had given the couple alternative photographers who would have no problem doing so. I know these aren't all tax-exempt issues, but it's all related.
  
• Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…Fact - this is about four activist judges and people who are trying to take the laws out of the voters hands. This was an issue that was voted on several years ago that was passed by an overwhelming majority. On the site on this point it then begins talking about how marriage is a a fundamental right. That is not true. Marriage is not a fundamental liberty because there are still restrictions on it. Can people who want to marry their own sons and daughters legally do so? Can an adult marry a minor? Or multiple partners? This is a right but within certain contexts. This is about four activist judges who overturned the will of the voters. What's to argue on this point? This was voted on previously, and will have to be voted on again next month.
  
• Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs. As I mentioned above people can, will, and have already been sued for their personal beliefs, because their belief then becomes labeled as discrimination over views about sexual orientation.
  
• Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school. Again, as I mentioned previously this is something that has already happened in the state of Massachusetts and will happen here if this proposition doesn't pass.

This proposition really is about safeguarding the family. Under California law, homosexual couples who agree to civil unions already have all of the tax and legal privileges that heterosexual couples do (full text of the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act). The institution of mariage is what they're after in an attempt to mainstream the lifestyle. And in the end, studies show that children invariably are at a disadvantage when raised in a family without both mothers and fathers.

A lot of the argument for allowing same sex marriage (SSM) talks about it being a civil right. The problem with this right is that in will come to infrine on my right to live and believe how I choose. While supporters for SSM will argue that will not be the case, it will undoubtedly become an issue when they do attempt to teach and normalize the lifestyle in public schools, or when they come to our churches and attempt to force our hands recognize their marriages as being valid. Make no mistake, it will come to that point.

This commentary here gives some references for some of the points that I've made here in this post.

This website provides 10 reasons why we should oppose SSM. I really like this website because it is complete with references.

Here again is an LA Times editorial on the subject.

Here is a video on some people who have dealt with some of the issues regarding SSM:

This is not about discrimination. We're not saying that these people can't love how they choose to. If the proposition passes, these people will still be able to live their lives and have all of the same rights, privileges, and protections under the law that heterosexual couples are afforded. It's not about that. What this is about, and will eventually be about, is an infringement on our rights to believe and behave as we choose to see fit. Without the protection of a constitutional amendment, these activists will begin to go after our churches and legitimize their lifestyles that we don't agree with. More eloquently put in a Wall Street Journal article:

Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.

I feel like this post poorly expresses the opinion of its author, but I hope you at least follow the links, do some research and come to your own conclusions. I sent in my ballot yesterday with votes on all the issues, including my support of Proposition 8. I encourage you to look at the facts, and to do the same.

UPDATE: I found this article on a different website coming from a gay talk show host in LA. It's incredibly insightful, and articulates much better some of my own arguments from a viewpoint that I just don't have. It's really good, but for those who won't bother to click on the link, here is an excerpt:

As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable among gays. This is not a slur against gays as individuals, but rather the reality of what occurs when you have what I call the all gas and no brake environment of male/male sexuality. I should know. I am a gay male.

To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly. Further, almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition.

The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone.

What more certifiable blessing than state sanctioned marriage of two men or two omen, even for a group that has offered no indication that most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails, or that serves the real purpose of marriage. Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring.

And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else?

This Is My Kind Of Town!

Chi-City!

So...besides the marathon, I was in Chicago for several days. I kind of dig on Chicago. When I saw "kind of" I mean REALLY, and when I say "dig on" I mean LOVE. We happened to go on the perfect weekend. It ended up snowing here in Provo, but was in the 70s throughout the weekend in the windy city. There were definitely times where it felt like we were kind of sitting around a good amount, but at the same time, we managed to get a lot done in just the three full days that we had:

• River architecture tour
• Hancock Lounge (which is better than the observatory because it's actually one floor up, and cheaper too, thanks Karen)
• Cruised Navy Pier a couple of times
• Watched fireworks over Lake Michigan
• Art Institute of Chicago
• I ended up walking about 2.5 miles to McCormick Place south of the institute to pick up my race packet for the marathon the next morning. I had no idea it was that far when I started walking.
• Sears Tower
• Marathon
• Wrigley Field
• Live jazz

We did walk along the Magnificent Mile. I wish we would have toured Millenium Park a little bit more and at least seen the silvery bean sculpture thing featured in the Homecoming video by Kanye.

My two favorite things were probably the architecture tour and the Art Institute. I'll post separately on the art museum later, but the boat tour is awesome. You go down the rivers and the guy gives basically a history lesson on Chicago and also talks about all the buildings and the design and inspiration behind each. I'll include a slideshow so you can see our pics. Obviously I liked that one a good amount.

Chicago is just awesome though. I love the musicality of the people. Outside the institute there were kids playing the bucket drums all weekend long. They're probably there all the time. I wonder if it's a weekend only thing, or if they've dropped out of school. There are so many guys playing trumpets and saxophones on street corners. One guy was singing at a step on the metro. One part of it is sad because these guys don't have real jobs, but it's cool how talented they are. And there are so many jazz and blues clubs throughout the downtown area. LA doesn't even have that much stuff, although there might be more variety. My name is supposedly on that wall somewhere.

I also loved how clean Chicago is. Although there might be a good amount of homeless people, I don't think I saw one piece of stray trash anywhere. That's kind of amazing for such a big city.

We also took in these fine dining establishments:

• Potbelly's
• Giordano's
• Gino's
• Sports Bar by the hotel
• Sports Bar kiddie corner from home plate at Wrigley Field
• Ghiradelli's

Dave was already familiar with the wonderfulness of Potbelly's. Giordano's and Gino's was for deep dish pizza. Both were really good, but in different ways. Giordano's has a really great crust, tastes great, but is so heavy. Gino's is a little bit lighter, but the crust is more cornbready. I wrote my name on a pillar over by where you pickup the pizza for carry-out at the Gino's on Superior and Michigan. I wrote it in blue ink on "Kayla" that was written in white about 5ft up. You have to turn around when you're at the pickup place for the pizza. Just in case you were wondering.

Next time I want to take in a game at either Soldier or Wrigley Field. It would be so sweet to take in a game from one of the adjacent rooftops by Wrigley. I'd like more Ferris Bueller inspired photos. Millenium Park. And go back to the Art Institute after the modern wing is completed. Plus I need more Potbelly's, and I never got a Chicago-style dog. What I'd really like to do is take in a St. Patty's day parade and see the river dyed green.

And maybe run another marathon. You gotta love Frank. Man his voice is so smooth.

Week 18 - Chicago Marathon 2008

I wish I would have written this Sunday night right after the race with everything still fresh, but hopefully this will do. For a full treatise of the marathon training, you can visit the “marathon” label link on my blog.

I loaded up the night before the race on some Chicago-style deep dish pizza. I did my best to get to bed early, but I think my school sleep schedule just wasn’t allowing for it. I took some mild sedatives (Tylenol PM) and didn’t move around much after 9pm, but I just couldn’t really get tired. I wasn’t quite feeling any nervousness, just a general feeling of anxiety for the race to start if that makes any sense. Luckily, the previous two days I was able to sleep in, so the fact that I couldn’t fall asleep until about 1:30am and was planning on getting up at 5:30am wasn’t as bad as it could have been. At least not being tired allowed me to catch the last of the Rays-Red Sox game.

During the short night’s rest, I still woke up a couple of times, and then finally got up and began making my race preparations in the darkened hotel room. I ate light - just a banana, cereal, and finished off a liter of water that I started before going to bed.

Our hotel was a little less than a half mile from the start of the race. I departed for the start at 6:30am, met up with a couple of other runners and saw more as I made my way over to Michigan Avenue. The day could not have started off any more pleasantly. What were just a few runners at the hotel turned into hundreds, and then thousands as I approached the starting point.

Sunrise greeted me with pink and orange hues while I crossed over the Chicago River and looked over to Lake Michigan. Temperature was a cool, but pleasant 68 degrees. It’s a little hard sometimes to wrap your mind around the number of participants in this year’s marathon – 45,000 runners. The best way to grasp it, for me at least, is to imagine a sold-out night at Anaheim Stadium. It was amazing to think that so many people would be exerting themselves in the same task of traversing 26.2 miles.

I should have probably gotten out even a little bit earlier than I did. I dropped my bag off, and went to use the restroom, which took more than 20 minutes. I ended up getting over to the starting corrals at 7:30am, only 30 minutes before the start of the race. The problem with that was that I couldn’t get up to my goal marathon pace group of 3:30-3:45, instead making my way up to only the 4:30 pace time. There were just too many people.

If you’ve never run any kind of race before, it’s really a unique experience. I’ve played competitive sports all growing up, but it’s an entirely different feeling when that many people have a common goal, which isn’t to beat each other, but to get from start to finish. Everyone pulls for each other like you wouldn’t believe, with the higher the distance, the higher the sense of community.

The race began right at 8:00am, starting and ending in Grant Park right next to Lake Michigan. I wish I had a picture of the start from this race year’s race, but the image that is affixed in my mind is going through a tunnel and seeing the Chicago Marathon banner on the bridge above, and just thousands of people cheering.

Because I started out with people running at a slower marathon pace, I had to really fight my way up throughout the entire race. It’s really hard to navigate through thousands of other runners. Lesson learned. My first split was slow, but then again, it might have helped me out to not jump out too quickly with the rush of adrenaline that comes from running a first marathon. Although, for me personally, I’ve never had any trouble pacing myself to start with so maybe it wouldn’t have mattered. In any case, my first 5k split was right at 30 minutes.

I don’t know if this will be the case for future marathons, but really the adrenaline and all of the support carried me for at least the first 15 miles. I was feeling pretty good to start with, but I did have some tightness in my right calf. Eventually that feeling went away, only to resurface in my left calf. I didn’t have any real opportunity to stretch or warm-up before the race so I was warming up as I was running. Probably not a good strategy.

I cannot even express the amount of support and how valuable it was to me throughout the race. It really is several hours of people yelling nothing but encouraging things to you the entire time that you’re running. It is so amazing.

This is going to be totally unfamiliar to some and way too drawn out, but do any of you remember Ghostbusters 2? Underneath New York there was a sewer system full of slime that fed off the emotions of the people. The scientists figure this out, and that it was fueling the return of some 16th century tyrant that was stuck in a painting. Eventually they figure out that if positively energized that slime can bring inanimate objects to life and be a force for good. My favorite scene is when they’re in the Statue of Liberty and coating the whole thing with the slime while playing Jackie Wilson’s Your Love Keeps Lifting Me Higher.

Ladies and Gents, I am that slime and the volunteers, crowd, and all of the support were like that song for me. I know it sounds dumb, but it’s absolutely true. I cannot overstate the amount of positive energy that came from everyone involved. From the LGBT Cheerleading Squad to the various high school marching bands that were playing throughout the race, everything that everyone did/said meant the world to me.

Some people brought out their bands to perform. We ran through 29 different neighborhoods, and it was palpable the unique culture and identity of each one. I ran past a reggae band complete with steel drums. Rock bands, blues/jazz bands, and mariachis played for us throughout. One guy even had playing over some amps a military cadence. Even the smells of the different foods emanating from the kitchens was unique to each culture and neighborhood that I passed through.

As I started to move up to the faster runners, I began to have an easier time getting splits that felt more comfortable for me. The second 5k time was 26 minutes, and then the next three 5k splits were all right around 24 minutes. I covered the first half in 1:50, which felt pretty decent. When I crossed the halfway point, Bon Jovi’s Living On A Prayer was blaring, and the best part was before getting there I had thought that would be the song that I would want playing and the line I wanted to hear most was “Whoa! We’re halfway there!” but I thought the odds of that happening were very slim. As it turned out, it worked out perfectly. There were dozens of little things like that that really kept me in good spirits and helped me keep on keepin’ on.

When I saw my half marathon time, I thought that hitting 3:30 was within my grasp. I was feeling strong and I really thought I’d have the energy to finish the marathon off at a decent pace. That was until, I reached 2:24 in the race, right between mile 17 and 18. The tightness in my calf was getting to be too much so I was starting to pull over to stretch. I stepped with my left foot, twitch, then right foot, back to left and then I felt a popping sensation in my calf.

I couldn’t believe it. I stretched for a minute or two, walked another minute or so, and wasn’t sure how to proceed. I had a little more than 8 miles to cover from that point and figured that if I walked quickly I could still finish the race before the marathon would close. It would have put me right around 4:30 for my total time.

A friend of mine the week prior had asked me if there was any kind of injury that would keep me from running the marathon, and I responded that it would have to depend on how bad the injury was. She said that it hurt so bad it made me cry. I actually thought of this conversation with her and it made me laugh. I started to jog again, and I knew that I could deal with the pain knowing it was only going to last less than 2 more hours. It didn’t quite hurt so much that I wanted to cry, but it was nagging me throughout the rest of the run.

My 5k splits immediately thereafter slowed to 26 minutes, then to 27 minutes, and then to 28 minutes. Other than the calf, I was feeling fine other than the fact that I had been running for more than 3 hours. The course runs mostly north to south, and is largely shaded for the first 23-24 miles. I didn’t know this until today, but it did heat up to 85 degrees by 11:00am, and the last couple of miles are completely unshaded.

After having last year’s experience where the race had to shut down, the Chicago marathon support was bulked up to include more drinking stations and more misting stations. I probably ran through 4-5 full hose soakings in the last several miles, and drank a gallon of Gatorade.
Everyone, including the runners, is cheery throughout the first part of the race. It starts getting really tough when you’ve passed your own farthest length of distance running (mine was 22 miles), and you’ve crossed into that uncharted territory. Everyone is slow and everyone is trudging along. What really made a big difference for me was hearing all the support from everyone those last few miles. Again, little things become big factors in giving you the extra energy you need to complete the race. Another one of those things for me was hearing AC/DC’s TNT. I don’t know what it was about hearing the opening intro “Oi”s that did it for me, because that song hasn’t gotten me pumped up probably since I was in junior high, but it totally got me going again.

Throughout the race I was constantly keeping track of my mile times, but that got harder towards the end because they didn’t use as many mile markers. Instead, a lot of kilometer markers tracked your progress on the course, but I was in no mood to calculate in my head how many miles 39k and 41k were. So when I finally saw the 24 mile marker, I was pretty excited. I figured that it couldn’t have been much more than 20 minutes of running, and what is that to me at that point in the race? Turns out, a lot.

People were yelling more than ever towards the end, but they were a little more sparse from miles 22-24. Some people were yelling things like “only 2 miles to go!” which would have been helpful under most circumstances, but not when my calf is aching and the bones in my feet are so sensitive it feels like I’m running barefoot. So when I passed a big black guy yelling “only 1.8 miles more to go! You can do it!” it was probably the most motivating thing to hear for me in the entire race. I knew I was on my way.

I crossed the 25 mile marker. Than the 1 mile to go marker. At this point in the race, the crowd is bigger than it had been at any other point, leaving a pathway of no wider than 10-12 feet. I came to the last .2 miles, saw a right turn onto red carpet and I finally knew I was going to finish. I made my way up a subtle incline with bleachers flanking my left and right. I made one final left turn and saw the finish line.

There could not have been a more welcome site in all my life. I’ve thought a lot about the kind of pose I would strike at the finish line. Would it be the typical arms raised in exultation? I even thought about striking the Safety Dance pose from the 80’s song with the left arm up, right arm down, but decided on just an airplane-type finish, which felt subtle but not generic.

I didn’t experience any of the kinds of cramps I had felt after other long runs, meaning I was well fueled for the race. I did have to stop a couple of times on the last couple of miles to stretch out my calf again because there were a couple of times where the feeling of extreme tightness was coming back on. I would have liked to finish stronger, but I really felt like the whole muscle would tear apart if I tried to push it too much.

With the race over, I tried to thank every person I could in the most sincere way possible, looking into everyone’s eyes and saying “thank you so much.” I couldn’t say much more because I was just so worn out. They had great accommodations for the runners afterwards including, fruit, water, shiny plastic sheets to reflect the sun, bagels, ice, and fruit smoothies.

From the point that I strained my calf to the end of the race, I was feeling really emotional. I cannot express the amount of gratitude I was feeling for everyone that was in the race, those who lined the streets in support, and those who gave their time to make it such an amazing experience. I cannot say enough about how grateful I am to have my best friend and his wife come out in support of my effort.

This is going to sound a little cheesy, maybe a lot, and I did actually think this during the race, but I really think the marathon is a perfect metaphor for life. I expressed most of these thoughts in a talk I gave in sacrament meeting before coming up to Utah so I won’t get into all of it here, but there was something really special to me about the support I was feeling from everyone and how grateful I was to take part in such a neat experience and to be able to finish it.

They estimated that more than 1.5 million people come out just to watch the marathon. That means that for every runner there were 33 people pulling for just that one person to finish. While most people probably had someone specific that they were cheering for, I know that they were all cheering and pulling for me too. And I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that it’s the same way in our everyday lives. While there are those obvious people who are in your corner and you know that they’re always there, there are literally dozens of others who are right behind them, pulling every bit as much for your success in all that you do.

From 2 Kings 6:15-17 - “And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?

And he answered, Fear not; for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.

And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw; and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.”

I really think that this just happened to be one of those experiences where I had my eyes opened and literally saw the kind of support that was there to encourage me through to the end. I know that kind of heavenly help is there every step of the way, whether it’s the friends and family that we can actually see, or help from beyond the veil and God’s hand moving those pieces in our behalf, it is there and it is real. I know it.

One thing I love about the marathon is how dramatic and literal the achievement is of crossing the finish line. You’ve more than likely spent months in preparation and you literally cross a line that marks the completion of your goal. When I first saw the Nike signs posted around the city saying “We believe Sunday is just a victory lap” I thought it was kind of lame, but after having the experience of actually running the race, knowing full well that my weeks and months of training were finally over, that marketing tagline suddenly felt so much more poignant.
I can’t thank you all enough for all of your encouraging words and the support that you’ve given me. It literally means the world to me.

I finished the Chicago Marathon in 3:43:13. I’m already thinking that I want to run one of these every year, so if you want to join me I would be so excited to train with you and help you out in any way that I can.

I can’t believe you’re still here. Thanks for reading this far.