Marshall’s Blog | Crazy Mormon Lib

On Sept. 9, Chuck Cooper, the lead attorney defending Prop 8 in the federal courts, spoke to about 200 students at the Brigham Young University Law School. I was there and I promised to live tweet the drama as it unfolded. Unfortunately, I didn’t think anyone was paying attention so I decided to participate in the discussion instead. I apologize to those who were waiting for updates. Please consider this post the next best thing.

WARNING: This topic is really tough to talk about, especially as a practicing Mormon attending a Church-owned school. I find that no matter how I discuss Prop 8, I end up offending somebody. To help mitigate that situation, I’m going to narrow the focus of this post. I’m only discussing the legal arguments that Mr. Cooper and his colleagues have presented. I’m not going to get into any faith-based arguments that many of my fellow Mormons consider paramount.

Chuck Cooper failed miserably in attempting to defend Prop 8 to possibly the friendliest crowd he will even encounter. The problem centers on the fact that he has absolutely no proof that state-recognized homosexual marriages would harm the institution of heterosexual marriage in any way whatsoever.

The opponents of Prop 8 argue that it was an unconstitutional law because it violates the 14^th Amendment, which requires equal protection under the law. Mr. Cooper admits that Prop 8 creates an inequality under the law, or at least a separate-but-equal situation, but hangs his case on proving that there is a compelling societal interest in legally defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. To prove this, he makes a strong appeal to tradition.

Marriage has always been defined as an opposite-sex union in the United States. Courts, judges, elected representatives, and the general public, predominately favor restraining marriage to only heterosexual couples, he argues.

His argument from tradition fails, however, for two reasons. First, traditions change. The fact that we’re having this debate right now underlines that fact. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. For instance, consider the following truism: every judge and elected representative in this country refused to recognize interracial marriages until the first one did. Nobody would argue today that interracial marriages are antithetical to American traditions and are therefore invalid. The second reason his traditional argument fails is that there is a competing tradition in the United States: equality. Americans believe in equality and it is a tradition that has shaped our laws and society for the last two centuries. We believe in it so much that we’ve even enshrined it in our Constitution. When arguing which tradition is more important, the opponents of Prop 8 can cite the plain meaning of the text in the Constitution. Chuck Cooper, however, is left to make broad simplifications of the historical role of marriage in America. From a legal standpoint, the primacy of equality is obvious.

The only argument left for Mr. Cooper is to make a prediction about how state-recognized homosexual marriages would harm the admittedly vital institution of heterosexual marriage in America. And so, when he was done speaking and asked if anyone had any questions, I nearly jumped out of my seat. He recognized me and I asked something like this:

Mr. Cooper, you’ve made a strong case for the importance of marriage in our society. I applaud you for that, and I agree with you. However, what you’ve failed to do here and what you’ve failed to do in court is show how homosexual marriage would harm heterosexual marriage in any way. Can you explain that now?

His answer:

Recognizing homosexual marriage would not harm heterosexual marriage at all, and that it was never a point he felt he needed to prove in court. This shocked a lot of people in the room because they had assumed that was the whole point of Prop 8 — defending traditional marriage.

He then went on a big, looping, lawyerly explanation that ended by an apparent contradiction. He argued that the role of marriage in society was primarily to benefit children, and not to recognize romantic and committed love between two adults. Redefining marriage outside the realm of procreation and child-rearing would weaken families in America, he said. While he didn’t state it, he was trying to have it both ways. Recognizing gay marriage would obviously not hurt traditional marriage in any way … but it would.

So, I asked a follow up question:

Many committed gay couples are currently participating in child-rearing. Whether you want to legally recognize it or not, it’s a fact. So recognizing homosexual marriage wouldn’t change the traditional purpose of marriage at all. In fact, your own witness testified in court that the children of gay couples would be seriously harmed because their parents lacked the societal recognition of marriage. How can you explain that?

He couldn’t. He got a bit nervous, fumbled a bit, and went on a seemingly endless rant about the societal dangers of single-parenthood. At one point, the person sitting next to me turned and whispered, “So he’s saying that committed gay parents are better than single parents?”

“That’s what he’s saying, and sociological studies have shown better outcomes as well,” I said.

“So, he doesn’t really have a case?” he said.

“No,” I said. “I don’t think he does at all.”

I could have kept pressing Mr. Cooper, but I didn’t want to hog all the time. Plus, I thought it was fairly obvious that he was completely unable to answer my questions.

The next question was about their ability to defend Prop 8 on appeal—nothing that interesting. The next question, however, was a doozy. Another BYU law student, whom I’ve never met, listed the advancements of reproductive technology in the last couple of decades. He then asked Mr. Cooper if these advances, which make it entirely possible for gay couples to fully participate in procreation and child-rearing, wouldn’t seriously hurt his arguments.

Mr. Cooper said that his arguments were still sound, but he couldn’t explain why.

A few more questions and Mr. Cooper stepped down from the lectern with what I must assume was a sense of relief. The whole experience left me with one question: If Chuck Cooper can’t defend Prop 8 in front of a group of BYU students, then how is he going to defend it in front of the Supreme Court?

Like most people today, I was fascinated by the news that Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. I spent the rest of the day wading through criticism of the action from the right and from the left. The argument from the left is legitimate in my mind. It does seem strange to give the peace prize to somebody who is waist deep in escalating a war. Still, if the prize is being used as a motivator to encourage Obama to make the right decisions, then I think it’s perfectly apropos.

The right’s argument is bizarre. I’m still not sure what their problem is with it beyond the fact that they don’t like Obama and the prize comes from foreigners.

Anyhow, I took my video camera to the weekly peace vigil I attend and asked everybody there what they thought. They bring up some good points. I think you’ll find their reactions much more logical and reasonable then almost anything you’ll find in the main stream media right now. That, if nothing else, gives me hope. Enjoy.

Obama Nobel Peace Prize Reaction 1

Obama Nobel Peace Prize Reaction 2

Obama Nobel Peace Prize Reaction 3

Obama Nobel Peace Prize Reaction 4

Obama Nobel Peace Prize Reaction 5

I’ve been busy lately working on a new project called Flactivists. It’s a group of public relations and marketing professionals that will do pro bono work for grassroots environmental and social justice movements. (It’s a portmanteau of “flack” and “activists,” get it?)

The idea is that a lot of great protests and acts of conscience fall by the wayside because they don’t get enough media attention they deserve. So why not get the people who make a living getting media attention to lend a hand? If you need some PR help, or if you want to help out, contact me on the new site http://www.flactivists.com.

Last November, a Mormon friend of mine asked how I could support Obama considering his liberal stance on abortion. The following is a brief version of my reply. What most people don’t know – including most Mormons – is that Obama’s abortion stance is the most compatible with the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Don’t believe me? Read on.

The Church’s Official Stance

Like most Christian denominations, Mormonism is clear in its denunciation of abortion. Mormons who procure, encourage, or support “elective abortions for personal or social convenience” can face disciplinary action and even excommunication. However, the Church believes that abortion may be appropriate and therefore worthy of legal protection under the following circumstances:

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Health of the Mother
4. Life of the Mother
5. If a competent medical authority determines that the fetus won’t be able to survive beyond birth.

Reference

In all these circumstances, the Church counsels, a woman should proceed with an abortion only after “receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.”

One of the guiding principles of Mormonism is personal revelation. It’s a belief that’s akin to the philosophy of the Transcendentalists: that everybody must find God for himself and work out his or her path based on that personal relationship and understanding. So, under certain circumstances, Mormons believe that God may actually sanction abortion. In such a case, it is the woman’s responsibility to determine God’s will concerning her pregnancy.

Mormons Don’t Believe that Abortion is Murder

When the Church refers to abortion, it often quotes our modern book of scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants, as it forbids things that are “like unto” murder.

An official Church statement in 1972 argued that since God has been silent on the matter of when life begins, we can assume that even elective abortion is “not the same class of crime” as murder.

Mormons Take the Biblical Approach to Abortion

The Bible only mentions abortion one time, and it’s surprisingly positive. Numbers chapter 5 describes how a priest can administer an abortion to a woman whose pregnancy is the result of infidelity. The abortion, however, relies on the Lord’s approval. The priest gives the woman “bitter water,” which acts as a divination as well as an abortive agent. If the pregnancy is illegitimate, it will be aborted. If not, the pregnancy will continue.

Of course, like many things that have endured centuries of editing and translation at the hands of men, this chapter reeks heavily of misogyny. Still, what we find consistent with the Latter-day Saint position and the Old Testament teaching is that under certain circumstances, God may actually expect a woman to get an abortion.

Republicans: Mormons are Pro-Abortion Extremists

Now that I’ve laid out the LDS position on abortion, which I think is extremely reasonable, I want to address the Republican and Conservative reaction to that position. It is that Mormons are “pro-abortion extremists.” Several anti-abortion groups have cried heresy at the implications of Divine approval for abortions in certain circumstances. Even Sen. John McCain made the charge during the last presidential debates. In this clip, you’ll hear Obama explain his position on abortion, which is practically identical to the Mormon position. McCain then mocks him and then says that “health of the mother” is the language of “pro-abortion extremists.”

Considering all this, the question is not how can a Mormon support Obama, but how can a Mormon support the Republican Party line on abortion. To criminalize abortions would, from a Mormon perspective, actually restrict freedom of religion. If a woman finds herself in a circumstance where an abortion might be necessary, and she prays to God, and God tells her to proceed, then it is not only her right to have a safe and legal abortion, but her duty. Any law that would restrict that would be an unjust law. As a Mormon, I accept the fact that many in the religious right would consider me a “pro-abortion extremist,” even though I would give everything I have to prevent an abortion from ever being necessary. This is why I voted for Obama, and this is why I can never support a politician who wants to criminalize abortion.

I can’t say how happy I am that today the U.S. officially began it’s withdrawal from Iraq. Most Iraqis celebrated, which was to be expected. A very small number of people got violent, which was also to be expected. My prayers go out to the families of the Iraqis and Americans who died today.

The possibility of continued violence is often cited as a reason not to withdraw. The British made the same arguments about nearly every colonial interest they had. I’m sure there will be more violence to follow in Iraq, but it won’t change the fact that withdrawing is the right thing to do. In the next year we will need to watch Iraq and the Obama Administration with a close eye to ensure that we withdraw completely and do not leave behind significant numbers of U.S. troops or any permanent U.S. military bases. Still, this is a day that I’ve been working toward for so long. It seems surreal.

With the amount of hard work that remains, it’s hard for me to feel ecstatic about the largely symbolic transfer of authority today. Still, I feel relieved. I feel like I can breathe a little easier and hold my head a bit higher. I feel like America is getting back on the right path after nearly a decade of trugding through a dark and virulent mist.

The task now is two-fold: 1) Ensure the withdrawal continues uncompromised. 2) Hold accountable the people who instituted and initiated illegal war, torture, and indefinite detention.

The following is the text of a speech I gave at the Accountability for Torture Day in Salt Lake City, Utah on June 25. It’s not word for word, but I thought it was worth posting.

Thank you for showing up here today. I’m so glad to be with you. That may sound strange to say given the seriousness of the topic, but it’s true. This rally, and your presence, shows how far we’ve come as a country.

In 2003, I attended a protest against the impending invasion of Iraq at Utah State University. A handful of people showed up to support peace and about 200 people showed up to support war. Groups of them wore T-shirts that read “Bomb Saddam.” They yelled at us, they mocked us, they tried to take our microphone and stage away from us. We yelled back.

It was the beginning of a dark time for our country. Since then, we’ve watched, heartbroken, as our nation has gone down the strange path of illegal war, xenophobia, and torture. But now, today, less than a decade later, we can already see that our country is beginning to awake from the nightmare that has gripped it.

I feel more hope for an end to the war today than I ever have before. And I feel surer that those who put this country on this path will face justice in this life. To come to this event, and see you here, makes e believe that it will happen. And that makes me relived. It makes me happy and it makes me hopeful for the future.

Spending a year in Iraq as a soldier, I came to understand more fully that every act of violence has at least two victims: the person who commits the violence and the person who is on the receiving end of that violence. Both may be burdened and scarred for life, and both may eventually die of their wounds.

And so, when our country chooses a path of war and torture, we create twice the pain, twice the broken lives, and twice the destruction. When I think of this, I think of Spec. Alyssa Peterson, who was one of the first women to die in Iraq. I’ve told her story before, but I will keep telling it until everyone knows it.

I’ve never met her, but I feel very close to her because we have some important things in common. We are both Mormons who served as missionaries for our church. We both returned from those missions with a desire to serve our country, and joined the military. But Alyssa was exceptional. She was a gifted linguist who taught herself Dutch before going to the Netherlands as a Mormon missionary. She applied this gift to learn Arabic and serve her country as an interpreter and interrogator.

But when she got to Iraq, her country betrayed her. Alyssa was ordered to participate in an interrogation operation referred to as “the cage.” Our government refuses to tell us what went on in the cage, but from what we know it wasn’t good. Some accounts talk of men being stripped naked before female interrogators who would then proceed to mock the men’s genitalia. Some accounts hint at things much worse.

As Mormons, Alyssa and I were raised to believe that we are all children of God. We believe in the divinity of our bodies and the sacredness of our sexuality. And so I understand the betrayal she must have felt when she realized that her country was asking her to use that sacred sexuality and the divine feminine within her as a weapon to humiliate, defile and torture another child of God.

Weak and naïve men, thousands of miles away from any danger, acted out of fear and hate and ignorance and ordered Alyssa to abandon her morals, to defy here sense of right and wrong, and to rebel against her God.

Alyssa, however, was exceptional. She refused to do it. After only two days working in the cage, she complained about what was happening and utterly refused to serve. Shortly after that, she was found dead on her base in Iraq. The original story from the Army was that she died from a noncombat negligent weapons discharge. After a reporter dug deeper into the story, the Army declared her death a suicide. There is still is some doubt about that as well.

It is a shame that we do not know the full details of Alyssa’s story. It is a shame that we do not know what was going on in the cage that caused this exceptional woman such distress. It’s a shame that we have allowed our country to fall into this darkness.

Victor Hugo once wrote:

“If the soul is left in darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.”

For Alyssa’s sake and for the sake of all those how have been affected by torture and illegal war, we must prosecute those who caused the darkness. We must govern ourselves or abandon the experiment of self-rule.

One painful irony in all of this is that listed among those weak and naïve men who caused the darkness and betrayed Alyssa are several of her fellow Mormons. I have to admit that I’ve cursed their names in the past, and I’ve hated them. But, I want to suggest today that I was wrong in doing so.

As hard as it is, we must forgive all those who are accused of war crimes in our country. We must prosecute them in courts of law, but we must forgive them on a personal level first.

The reason for this is our focus must be on justice and not on vengeance or retribution. We can’t afford to hate the members of the Bush administration who authorized and ordered torture because that hate will be a barrier for the justice that we truly desire. Our struggle for justice will be long and hard, and hate is not a good long-term motivator. We must be focused on something nobler.

I’ve often wondered what I would do if I ever had the chance to meet Pres. Bush. Would I shake his hand? Would I snub him? Would I yell at him? But now, considering the task at hand, I know that if I ever had the chance to meet George W. Bush, I would embrace him as a brother. Because he too is a child of God. He is an American and he was my president. I forgive him for the pain his actions have caused me, and forgive him for the pain his actions have caused the world. Nevertheless, Justice demands he be held accountable for his actions.

And so today is a wonderful day, and I’m happy to be here. We’re all here together to make our country a better place. We’re here to ensure that future generations have a good example to follow. We’re here to demand justice for the countless victims of illegal war, indefinite detention, and torture.

I’d like to share one last thing with you. It’s a Mormon scripture from one of our canonical texts, the Doctrine and Covenants. I think it perfectly describes my motivations in calling for the prosecution of war crimes and I hope it will inspire others to take up the cause as well. It reads:

“We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in brining offenders against good laws to punishment.”

It’s my hope today, that we can all come together and use our abilities to bring offenders of good laws to punishment, and do it in a way that is free of hate and focused on peace and justice. Thank you.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how much I like atheists. As a devout Mormon, that might sound a bit strange, but I find most of the atheists I know to be wonderful, inspiring individuals. I’m sure there are some atheists out there who are also terrible, terrible people, but that has never been my experience. Here’s why I think that is:

1. Atheists are reliable

You always know what you’re going to get with an atheist: they don’t believe in God or organized religion. OK, fair enough. With that understanding, you can have many wonderful logic-based discussions on any number of topics. You may disagree, but there’s always an underlying deference to common sense.

With religious people, I’m often completely shocked with how they arrive at some conclusions. “You think the Bible says what now?” When I disagree with a religious person, it usually comes down to how I interpret a part of scripture compared to how he or she interprets it. Disagreements like this lead nowhere and I find myself wishing I was talking with an atheist.

2. Atheists are brave

The majority of people in the world believes in God and practices some form of religion. So, the odds are that your atheist friend had to make a pretty serious break with his or her family, culture, and way of life. I call that bravery. Most atheists I know have arrived at their conclusions because of an honest assessment of the facts and of themselves. Despite an enormous pressure to conform, they stand up for what they believe to be true. I find that inspiring.

I have one friend whose father was a Mormon bishop. To fill some time in a meeting, this father called his son up from the audience to share his belief in God and Mormonism. Despite hundreds of friends and neighbors looking at him expectantly, he remained seated and silent. He did not believe and he was not going to lie, even if it would save him from a terribly awkward and painful experience. I don’t care who you are, you’ve got to respect that kind of sacrifice.

3. Atheists are moral

Truly moral decisions are not the result of the memorization of codes and laws. True morals require a person to explore issues deeply, examine the difference between right and wrong, and make reasoned decisions about which paths to pursue. Without a belief in God or religion, most atheists I know have taken the responsibility to think through important issues and situations on their own. The end result is that most atheists are highly moral people. The danger with religion is when its laws and creeds are accepted prematurely or applied inappropriately.

Considering all that, I think atheists deserve some credit. They’re logical, moral and they stand up for what they believe in. Now if we could just get religious people to do the same.

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

In America, you can face up to 10 years in prison for standing up for what’s right in a nonviolent way. That’s what’s happening to Tim DeChristopher, a University of Utah student who was charged today for disrupting an oil and gas leasing auction of public land in Utah back in December.

Tim drove the price of the land up and really pissed off the oil companies. He also ended up winning about $1.8 million worth of leases himself. He raised enough money to cover the first down payment, and felt confident he could raise money for the subsequent installments, but that didn’t matter.

The Obama administration nullified the acution in February because it was hasty and involved sensitve lands. That is exactly why Tim took direct action back in December. He was able to delay things long enough for Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to review the whole mess and recind the leases.

Still, U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman, is charging DeChristopher with two felonies worth 10 years in prision and up to $750,000 in fines. Tolman announced it on April Fool’s Day, which is appropriate. Considering the seriousness of the charges, I’ve got to ask, what was the damage here?

Bascially, the government isn’t out anything. The oil and gas guys and the BLM had to play by the rules and set up a legitimate auction, which went off without a hitch last week. But DeChristopher is still getting charged.

I suppose Tolman thinks it’s the principal of the thing. But 1o years? This is nuts. Sex offenders and armed robbers get lesser sentences. If this goes through, America will have to ask itself why one of its citizens ended up in prision for a decade simply for following his conscience in a nonviolent way. This would be a travesty and embarrassment to our entire nation.

What is Tolman thinking? Why doesn’t Obama and Salazar chime in? If DeChristopher gets charged, what happens to the BLM officals that set up the faulty auction in the first place? Do they get life in prison? 

Here is DeChristopher’s statement:

On December 19th, 2008 I took what I considered to be ethical, necessary, and direct action to try to protect our planet, our democracy, and my fellow human beings. In that spirit of protection, I took nonviolent action, which did not harm anyone nor destroy any property. 

My actions stopped what I believe was an illegal and certainly unethical auction of red rock public lands in Southern Utah. This auction was a fraud against the American people and a threat to my future. My motivations to act against this auction came from the exploitation of public lands, the lack of a transparent and participatory government, and the imminent danger of climate change. 

I acted openly and honestly because I was then, and still am ready to take the consequences of my actions. I had hoped the wheels of justice, particularly with a new Administration, would recognize the merit of my actions and their results, and not pursue prosecution. Those hopes were misplaced, and now my hopes rest on a jury of my peers.  

I have a proven legal team with Ron Yengich and Pat Shea. In a matter that will undoubtedly go to trial, my team will have a chance to demonstrate the corruption of the system which “awards” oil and gas leases to the highest bidders, yet, where the public and the environment are without representation and ultimately are really the only victims through the catastrophic effect of climate change. This trial will be an opportunity to address our moral imperative to defend a livable future for our children.

I hope my actions will be understood by others who learn about the depth of manipulation in our system. I deeply appreciate the enormous support I have already received, and I hope it will continue in the future. If my actions inspire others to work for change, any consequences I have to face will be worth it.

Tim DeChristopher

Mitt Romney, the failed presidential candidate and famous Mormon, became known during his bid for the Oval Office in 2008 as a well-groomed, well-educated, well-spoken liar. If that’s too harsh, then let’s just say he gained a reputation for being duplicitous.

Don’t believe me? Just compare his policies from when he was a moderate Republican governor of a liberal state with his policies while he was running for president and trying to woo the conservative wing of his party.

Still, changing his mind on issues like stem cell research and health care don’t really bother me. He either had a change of heart, as he claimed, or he was doing the politically expedient thing. Either way, it’s not uncommon for politicians to pander for votes. However, other falsehoods baffled even his most ardent supporters.

For instance, during an interview with a Massachusetts journalist, he denied a key tenant of Mormonism, modern revelation. He did it in such a facile and off-handed manner, that it was shocking to many Mormons, who were normally some of his staunchest supporters.

As a liberal, I wasn’t a big fan of Romney, but this surprised me. I thought we at least held some common religious views, but apparently not. This was, in my mind, an absolute lie made for a short-term political gain.

The whole thing is a mystery. I know people who know Romney intimately and they vouch for the quality of his character above all else. Even some Democrats I know swear to his personal integrity. So what the hell happened?

Here’s my theory: Romney is Zelig.

Zelig, a film by Woody Allen, can explain why Mitt Romney was sometimes dishonest.

Leonard Zelig is a character in a Woody Allen mockumentary who tries so hard to gain acceptance that he completely changes his appearance based on his present surroundings. He is the human chameleon. When he is with fat people, he becomes fat. When he is with black people, his skin turns black. When he is with Nazis during the holocaust, he becomes a passionate Nazi.

The premise behind Zelig’s supernatural powers is based partly on the fact that he is Jewish. From childhood, Zelig was worried about persecution based on circumstances beyond his control. The result was his unconscious ability to change himself into whatever would spare him from embarrassment, harassment and Anti-Semitism.

Now, just replace Jewish with Mormon, and voila, Romney is Zelig.

In 2007, I was in Jerusalem and I met a group of Mormon tourists at church. After chatting with them, I found out that one of them was a major Romney supporter. I asked him casually how the ramp up to the primaries was going. He responded that things were going spectacularly well because Jerry Falwell had just met with Mitt Romney. He said Falwell hadn’t endorsed Romney, but had declared that a Mormon wasn’t necessarily evil incarnate and therefore a viable candidate for the presidency.

I remember being revolted that Romney had been forced to kowtow to this “agent of intolerance” for a scrap of recognition. It was the religious right of the past centuries led by people like Jerry Falwell that persecuted Mormons nearly to extinction. “Christian” extremists raped, imprisoned and massacred my people. They passed extermination orders that claimed killing Mormons was not a crime, but a benefit to humanity. These same extremists kicked my people out of the United States of American, and then sent the Army in to destroy them completely.

Mormons survived only to be hunted down by U.S. Marshals, deprived of their property and their right to vote based solely on their religious beliefs. Polygamy was the main bone of contention. The practice was officially ended by the church in 1891 because the Supreme Court declared that Mormons didn’t have the right to religious freedom on that subject. I do not, in any way, condone polygamy. I do assert, however, that between consenting adults, our Constitution should protect the practice. (I also believe this would apply to gay marriage.)

Mitt Romney’s ancestors were among those who practiced polygamy and paid the price for it. Imagine that a U.S. Marshal comes to your door and asks if you’re married to more than one woman. If you answer yes, he will take all your property and money and put you in jail, leaving your family to fend for themselves. If you say that the other woman is your sister-in-law, then you can continue to take care of your family.

It’s not an easy answer. *Abraham lied about his wife while they were in Egypt. Wouldn’t the same thing be justified now as well? I don’t feel qualified to make a judgment on the subject. But what is clear, is that through extreme persecution, some level of dishonesty became acceptable in Mormon culture.

Fast forward to Romney. The anti-Mormon furor that surrounded his candidacy was disgusting and uncalled for. I personally don’t feel like I need to grovel or ask for my fellow Americans to accept my religion. I believe what I believe, I let others worship how, where and what they may. I believe that the policies and doctrines of my church should be debated and discussed openly, but that no one should be judged based solely on his or her religion. Basically, I don’t care if other people don’t like my religion.

But Romney cared. He wanted to win. He wanted to be accepted. And so, he began to flex and bend and grovel and obfuscate. Before we knew it, he was Zelig, the human chameleon.

To complicate matters further, a young Romney must have noticed that his father’s shining political career went down in flames when he spoke the truth about the Vietnam War. George Romney said he had been “brainwashed” into thinking the war was good. He was right to say that, and time has vindicated him. But the statement caused a massive uproar, public embarrassment, and the end of his career.

I wonder if that experience reinforced the idea for Romney: Fib, if you have to. Lie, if you need to. And so, when Romney is hanging out with the NRA, he is a “life long hunter.” When he is surrounded by Christian extremists, he is a self-hating Mormon. Now, hopefully, he is surrounded by his loving family, and he is a loving family man. Let’s hope he stays there.

*(Originally, I’d put that God told Abraham to lie. In the comments it came to my attention that it’s not stated where Abraham got the idea to do what he did. Sorry for my poor memory of the Old Testament. The point, however, remains valid.)

I’m starting what I think will be the first online protest against the war in Iraq on Twitter and Facebook. It coincides with the 6^th anniversary of the war. It’s going to be simple and easy, but hopefully very impactful.

On March 20, at 3 p.m. EST, tweet: End the Iraq War. Then go to your Facebook account and update your status to say: protesting the Iraq War.

Please spread the word. Thanks,

Marshall

Twitter: @marshallt

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=689429154&ref=profile