Just and Holy Principles

The Church recently released a document called “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” The document explains the Church’s “reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative” and is intended to “reduce misunderstanding and ill will” regarding its position.

I’m glad the Brethren chose to publish this essay. I had been able to gather snippets of information regarding the reasoning behind the Church’s position on same-sex marriage from other statements, but there was no single document that combined them all or went this much in depth.

“The Divine Institution of Marriage” outlines the social, legal, moral, and political implications of legalizing same-sex marriage and the Church’s reasons for defending traditional marriage. The document mentions many common facts and arguments used to support traditional marriage, but from the Church’s unique perspective. Some parts could be more clear or argued in a better way, but overall it does the job. There is only so much evidence one short essay like this can provide.

Here are some of the most interesting and important quotes from it:

“Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.”

“Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not ‘tolerating’ transgression… The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds — including same-sex marriage — does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term ‘hate speech.’ We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.”

“Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place ‘church and state on a collision course.’”

“Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.”

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.”

I invite everyone to read this document, think about it, and decide whether or not it makes sense to you. Same-sex marriage is an issue that will become only more pressing as time goes on. We must each decide where we stand and how to defend our position, whatever it is. Whether it makes sense to us or not, I hope we all choose to follow the Brethren, but we are not to follow them blindly. We must learn for ourselves if what they say is true, which I believe it is. Please study this document and the related materials and decide where you stand.

What do you think?

With gas prices at $4/gallon, drivers finally seem to have reached a tipping point. At last, people are starting to drive less, use public transportation more, and grasp for any opportunity to save money on gas. Auto dealers, retailers, and blood banks, among many others, are offering deals for free gas. Some companies are even offering to pay a person’s gas bill if they turn their car into a rolling billboard to advertise for them.

Turn that frown upside down
Higher gas prices are making consumers, companies (especially airlines, trucking companies, and others that rely on gasoline to make a profit), and politicians reacting to their constituents concerns frown. Meanwhile, environmentalists and their friends are smiling. They know that the higher gas prices go the greater the urgency people will have to use and develop alternative fuels and transportation that are more environmentally friendly than oil.

For instance, the Toyota Prius, a hybrid of electricity and gas, has been selling quickly, and Honda just released a hydrogen powered car that emits no pollution. What may disappoint environmentalists, though, is that at a certain point high enough gas prices may spur people to demand more “dirty” energy like coal and oil. We may have reached that point already.

Should we drill for more oil?
President Bush is urging Congress to lift the ban on drilling for oil and natural gas on U.S. coasts and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. He also wants to open federal lands for oil shale development in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. Bush claims that these resources could produce more than 800 billions barrels of oil, “more than a century’s worth of currently projected oil imports.”

High gas prices may be good
Secretly, well, until now, I hope that gas prices stay high–but not too high. This way, Americans will feel desperate enough to accelerate the development of cleaner fuels and technology but won’t demand that we open more areas for drilling. It would be very nice to have vehicles powered by any cheap, clean fuel and to become energy independent. I’m afraid that if we increase oil production and gas prices fall, then superior fuel and technology will take much more time to develop.

Let the people decide
And yet, I think it’s wrong for the government to deny Americans the use of vast resources available in our own land. Companies should be allowed to take advantage of any energy resources available. We should drill for more oil and natural gas, convert shale into oil, and continue to invest in alternative forms of energy like hydrogen, electricity, biofuels, and wind and solar power. It may take industry longer to develop superior fuel and technology, but with all options on the table the best one will eventually rise to the top. Private competition and ingenuity, rather than government bureaucracy, will eventually find the best solutions.

At the Sutherland Institute this week, Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said that the Western Republican Caucus will propose a comprehensive energy policy platform that focuses on boosting production of all forms of energy, innovating new energy solutions, and incentivizing conservation. I think this is the right approach. We must not become narrow minded on energy policy. We must allow private industry to explore every possible option to help us become energy independent and, hopefully, more friendly to the environment.

What do you think?

Related post–Gas Prices: Patience Please…

In the U.S. today, there are 104 million pounds of used uranium stored in 39 states. The sites that store this high-level radioactive waste, mostly from nuclear power plants and weapons, are within 75 miles of more than 161 million people. State and federal officials have been debating what to do with this waste for decades, but they have not yet agreed on a solution.

Finding a safe solution is critical since exposure to radiation from nuclear waste can cause cataracts, mental retardation, cancer, and sometimes death. Any intentional dispersion of radioactive material through the explosion of a nuclear power plant, nuclear bomb, or dirty bomb could harm millions of people. Radioactive waste can also harm the quality of air, soil, and water and thus humans, animals, and vegetation.

What to do with the waste?
The main problem in dealing with nuclear waste is that it can remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Scientists and government officials have proposed various disposal methods such as storing it in pools, dry casks, or inside mountains, reprocessing it, or even launching it into space. Today, this waste is stored at 121 locations mostly in pools and dry casks.

Since 1982, the federal government has been trying to build a large repository in a safe place where states can send all of the nation’s waste. The feds began constructing such a site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada in 2002, but the project has met many roadblocks. The project is now on hold as Congress decides what to do with it. Let’s look at some of the pros and cons of storing all the nuclear waste inside Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert.

Pros
1. Easier to contain/manage waste all in one place
2. Fewer terrorism threats once stored
3. Fewer people would be near the waste

Cons
1. Scientists are uncertain about whether or not Yucca Mountain can hold the waste safely. For example, they have found evidence of volcanic and seismic activity in the area.
2. Transporting nuclear waste from states to Yucca could be dangerous
3. One state, Nevada, would bear most of the risk involved in storing nuclear waste.

My thoughts
It is likely unsafe to transport nuclear waste cross country on trains and it is unfair to make Nevada bear the burden of the entire nation’s waste. States that allow their people to create nuclear waste should find the safest way to dispose of it in their own states. In the mean time, scientists should work to find better methods to dispose of waste or to deactivate it. Above all, government officials should take the best measures they can to keep us safe.

The Church recently made the following statement:

“The transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste create substantial and legitimate public health, safety, and environmental concerns. It is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste. We ask the federal government to harness the technological and creative power of the country to develop options for the disposal of nuclear waste.”

What do you think?

Courtesy: AP

The House of Representatives recently passed another bill that would authorize federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. The bill will likely pass in the Senate as well; however, President Bush has promised to veto the bill, as he did last year, and garnering enough votes to override the presidential veto in the Senate is unlikely (read more).

I am not a scientist. And neither are most of you. But here I provide some factual information that will hopefully help us all understand the scientific and ethical questions surrounding stem cell research in order to form some opinions.

The facts
Newly formed human embryos are composed of stem cells. These stem cells multiply repeatedly and can either remain a generic, undifferentiated stem cell or become a brain, blood, organ, tissue, or other specialized cell. Scientists today hope to be able to extract stem cells from human embryos that are a few days old and engineer those cells into specialized cells that can replace damaged cells of those suffering from Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, diabetes, and many other diseases, conditions, and disabilities (read more).

Embryos are not the only possible source of stem cells. Adults and children have stem cells throughout their bodies that multiply and specialize to replace damaged cells. Two of the most promising sources of these cells are in bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. Additionally, scientists now believe that stem cells can be harvested from amniotic fluid surrounding an embryo or fetus (read more).

According to the National Institutes of Health, “adult stem cells such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases” (read more).

Government involvement
Stem cell research is currently legal. It can be performed by any scientist who can obtain stem cells and funding for research. Many private companies and state governments now provide funding for such research. In 2001, President Bush authorized the use of federal funds for research on 64 lines of embryonic stem cell lines that were deemed to have no potential for human life. Since then, he has not authorized the use of any additional lines or federal funding for research. The current debate in Congress regards whether or not the federal government should fund stem cell research, not whether or not it should be legal.

Is stem cell research ethical?
Many people claim that destroying an embryo, even just a few days old, is equivalent to destroying a human life. If, indeed, an embryo has the potential for human life, then is it moral to destroy that embryo with the hope of saving the lives of other children and adults?

My thoughts
Since the Church views abortion as the taking of human life and therefore has an official position against it (read more), but currently has no position regarding embryonic stem cell research (read news release), I am led to believe that whether or not an embryo constitutes human life is debatable. However, my policy is always to err on the side of caution. Since an embryo’s status is unclear, we should avoid destroying any embryo that has the potential for human life. At the same time, we might consider using embryos that lack that potential. The danger is that some overly eager people might find ways to create and kill embryos with the sole intent of using them for research.

A culture of life
In the end, we must protect the sanctity of human life. We must avoid any policy that may lead us further down the slippery slope to a society that disregards the life of the unborn. We have hope but no concrete evidence that using embryonic stem cells will actually cure disease. We should exhaust all possibilities with adult stem cells before risking the use of embryonic cells. And even if we do end up using embryonic cells, we must form policy that prohibits and effectively enforces the use of embryos only that definitely have no potential to become human beings, if such a policy does exist.

What do you think?

Take the poll!