Saturday, April 4, 2009


"Without hope life is not worth living.
You’ve got to give ‘em hope."

Scott and I finally got around to watching Milk last night. One of my students told me that he had recently bought it and had already watched it 4 times, and cried every time. He said his dad watched it with him.

I gave him a copy of Prayers for Bobby. He told me yesterday that everyone watched it with him--parents, cousins, aunt, uncles. He was so excited about it and grateful that I had passed it along to him.

I just wanted to do a quick post this morning and say that I have hope:

  • Iowa gives me hope.

  • My counselor friend said that the Principal is okay with having a "RAIN" club. That gives me hope.

  • I really hope that I don't freeze to death at my son's soccer game this morning. :) (For you out-of-towners, there is an inch of snow on the grass, and it is still lightly snowing.)

  • I have hope that my prayers for the last 2 weeks will be answered today as I watch conference, that I will not be uncomfortable and angry, but rather will find messages for me that I need, messages of hope.

I pray for that same hope for each of you.


Mr. Fob said...

We watched Milk a couple weeks ago and enjoyed it too. Good movie.

Ned said...

Thanks for reminding me that I need to buy and see Milk. Also very much appreciate your prayers and thoughts about Conference.

Beck said...

There is always hope! :)

Anonymous said...

Iowa shouldn't give you hope. The best way I can think of to ensure that gay marriage is a political bone of contention for decades to come is to have it imposed by judicial fiat. You need go no further than the heat still surrounding the abortion debate today to see that in action. An issue that would have found equilibrium decades ago smolders still because it was imposed by an activist judiciary. Contrast that with gun control--an issue that has largely been allowed to find balance through legislative process.

And here's the thing: while judicial fiat appears to get your cause on the books, it isn't absolute. While the only check on it is constitutional amendment, that isn't the barrier you might think it is. You may believe that a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage is unlikely, but that's only because we haven't yet had gay marriage imposed by a large enough number of courts to truly motivate those opposed to it. So far it has only been liberal bastions like Massachusetts. Once courts in places more moderate (like, say, Iowa) start following suit, people will start worrying enough to do somthing about it. Don't think that it won't happen. Once proposed, a constitutional amendment doesn't need 3/4 of the population to support it as many assume--it just needs half of 3/4 of the states to support it. And since even hyper-liberal California can't get half of their citizens to support gay marriage, you should maybe hesitate before using the courts to force this issue.

If you really want gay marriage to succeed, you'll work on convincing people, not courts. Work on the legislative process. It'll be slower but success there will mean lasting success for gay marriage in the end. Success in the courts will only foster resentment. And more anger towards gay folks in general. If you can convince enough people to enact actual legislation that provides gays with the right to marry then you've truly won your cause. Compulsion is no way to win your argument...

Scott said...

@Jacob: I don't think that there's anything wrong with a proponent of same-sex marriage rejoicing at the news out of Iowa and drawing hope from it (and I'm not sure that it's appropriate to dash the hopes of someone who has clearly recently had a hard time finding things to be hopeful about)...

Sarah would probably prefer that this post not turn into a political debate, but I did want to address a few of your points... What I wrote ended up becoming rather long, so I made some minor modifications and posted it on my own blog instead (it's probably better to take the conversation over there anyway).

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else have this soon as I hear those sing-song voices of Conference, they put me right to sleep. And if I'm not sleeping, I wish I was! I just want someone to talk to me about real issues, in a real voice.

When whichever woman spoke this morning, gave her definitions of families, I noted she didn't say, "And some families have two dads and some have two moms." Ah, what was I expecting?


Sarah said...

Alanna said:

When whichever woman spoke this morning, gave her definitions of families, I noted she didn't say, "And some families have two dads and some have two moms." Ah, what was I expecting?

I was thinking the same thing. :)

It had a good message nonetheless. Conference this morning touched my heart.

Thanks for your comment.

drakames said...

I'm glad that you have hope. I'm also glad that you didn't seem to freeze to death! March sure had an attitude this year!

Iowa also gave me hope...and at the same time, I'm anxious for what repercussions may come. I wish that people would take more time to see the joy and relief on the faces of those couples who now have an opportunity to get married. It's beautiful! I want to see more of that instead of reading or hearing angry voices, blasting insults and ranting about the disintegration of morals in America.

I'm glad that Iowa is giving everyone a fair chance. I'm glad that they are saying there's room for everyone. That's a moral of mine...even if some people choose to say that I don't have any, just because of who I am.

Thank you for sharing your hope.

LDS Pride said...

Give me a week or so to re-listen (and for one or two sessions to listen for the first time) to the talks and we can chat.

And while I was listening to the woman on Sat morning I was thinking of you.

Anonymous said...

I've been reading Scott and Sarah's blogs for a few weeks now and have yet to comment -until now. I think it's unfair to imply that Jacob was "dashing Sarah's hopes". It's clear that you are both very sensitive to these issues to the point of becoming offended by anything that is said contrary to your beliefs. Rather, I think he was adding some insight and clarifying things that you or others of us may not have considered. I believe that his ideas deserve merit and am sure that his intentions were not to offend anyone. (Besides offense can only be taken - not given.)

Regarding "whichever woman spoke" - her name is Barbara Thompson and actually lived in Scott and Sarah's LDS ward years ago on Peggy Ln (not that it's relevant). She is single, never been married, with no children so she has experience with living life in an "untraditional family."

Some of the sing-song-i-ness (is that a word?) in the delivery of the talks can be attributed to the fact that they must be given word-for-word. Because of the many languages that conference is simulataneously translated and transmitted into, the speakers cannot vary much from the original text (also because of the timely manner in which the addresses must be ready for publication in the Ensign and Liahona magazines.) I think the men, in general, are better at delivering the talks in their normal speaking voices. I wonder how many of us could do as well in that type of a setting - with thousands in attendance and millions more watching live.

But, who cares? It's about the message - not the delivery. Did you really expect to hear someone mention that a 2-dad or 2-mom family is now included in God's definition of an eternal family? To listen to conference or attend church meetings and expect to hear anything besides "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" is unrealistic. Certainly you are going to be disappointed if those are your expectations.

Scott said...

To: Anonymous

Welcome to our blogs! I assume (based on your knowledge of us, our neighborhood, etc.) that you must be a neighbor and friend. I hope that you can come to feel comfortable enough here that you don't feel like you need to maintain a cloak of anonymity in order to comment.

Regarding my comment to Jacob. It is true that we can both be a little bit sensitive at times (Sarah perhaps a bit more than myself), but I didn't intend my comment to imply that we (or I, or she) were offended by his remarks. This particular post was meant (as I understood it) to be a positive and uplifting one (a hopeful end to a difficult couple of weeks) and I felt like Jacob's comment (which would have been entirely appropriate and even appreciated in a politically-oriented post) to be a bit misplaced. That's all I was trying to say. I do know that he intended no harm, that he only meant to inform and to help us to see things in a light that we had (perhaps) not previously considered.

Regarding the comments on conference... I can't speak for Sarah or Alanna, but I'll try. :)

I understood the "sing-song" comments to have been made in jest. It can't be denied that there is a certain "feel" to conference talks (which, as you say, can be explained by the translation and transcription requirements inherent in the international nature of the conference), and I don't personally see anything wrong with noting that unique quality in a lighthearted manner.

And as for the "whichever woman spoke" comment... I certainly don't know all of the names of all of the General Authorities, let alone the General Auxiliary Leaders, so I don't think referring to a speaker in that manner is in any way inappropriate. The fact that Sister Thompson lived in our neighborhood is interesting, but I assume that must have been before we moved in, as I don't recall ever having met her. I am certain that neither Alanna nor Sarah actually expected anyone in conference to express approval of same-sex-headed families, and again, I understood Alanna's comment to have been made in jest--a light-hearted attempt to (in view of the hopeful nature of the original post) consider a world in which families that we (the author of the blog and the majority of its readers) believe have are good and worthwhile might be recognized by the Church as having worth and value.

Anonymous, I hope that the playful banter between Sarah and Alanna regarding Conference, Sister Thompson and families did not offend you. I assure you (speaking for my wife and a friend) that no offense was intended.

Thank you for visiting our blogs and (speaking for Sarah) for your contribution. We hope to hear more from you in the future!

Anonymous said...

No offense was taken whatsoever, Scott. And let me assure you that my intent in posting was not to "put anyone in their place". I hope that no offense was taken in my comments because certainly none was intended. I'm usually reluctant to give feedback, opinions, etc. in this type of setting because I'm never sure if those reading my postings can understand my tone. It's even sometimes difficult to misinterpret someone's tone when something is actually voiced - let alone when only read. Ninety percent of all communication is non-verbal so you can see the difficulty of fully expressing yourself if you take that 90 percent away in a forum like this. (Did that make any sense?)

Anyway, let me assure you that I am a friend! That's part of the reason I began reading the blogs. I feel like too many of those around us are misjudging you both. You are great people, but I do disagree with some of your ideas and political views (which is kind of the point isn't it - to share our views whether they be the same or different and still find common ground - still love each other and realize that the "worth of souls is great in the sight of God?")

I don't believe that same-gender attraction is a choice, but I do believe that sexual behavior is and that homosexual behavior is wrong, (but it's not my position to judge anyone.) We're all sinners in some respect and without repentance and the atonement of Jesus Christ no one can be saved. So, mostly I try to worry about my own choices and those of my children. I believe that God loves all of his children regardless of life's challenges and that everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect. I don't support same-gender marriage, but do support certain "rights" for gay couples in committed relationships. I fully sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as apostles, prophets, seers, and revelators and believe that President Monson is the mouthpiece for Jesus Christ.

I don't say any of this to imply that anyone else in this forum doesn't believe these same things nor am I taking a "holier than thou" position. I think most members of the Church spend way too much time comparing themselves to others when they should be worrying about their own stewardships. (I fall into this trap myself at times.) I only offer it as a persepective on my views so that you know where I'm coming from as I express them.