Doctor's Orders

“There’s a killer on the road
His brain is squirmin’ like a toad”
The Doors

The state of Utah enjoys one of the nation’s lowest alcohol-related highway fatality rates; in part due to aggressive enforcement of its’ drunken driver laws. Our governor and legislature repeatedly congratulate themselves on this good news. Billboards along all major highways announce the cost of driving “buzzed” (10K, minimum); and in the state-owned (only) liquor stores, there are signs warning customers that driving while intoxicated is a crime and is aggressively prosecuted in Utah. Aggressive enforcement, billboards, and posters are only part of the reason Utah has a low death by drunk rate.

The truth is, most Utah citizens do not drink at all. Sixty five to eighty five percent of the adults in this state are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints*, depending upon your source authority. Active, believing members do not use alcohol at all. Certainly, that is their choice; I am not denigrating that in the least. If you don’t drink, you will not cause a drunken driver accident.

Our (80% LDS) legislature in Utah is about to convene. Normally, the LDS Church does not take a publicly announced stand on issues coming to the session, but this year it has. The past few weeks have seen TV advertisements, interviews with news stations, and a you-tube clip, announcing that our liquor laws are fine just as they stand today; there is no need for legislative correction to them this year. Why? Well, one of the major concerns facing our legislature is the so-called Zion Curtain, a wall, of a designated height, behind which bartenders store, mix and pour alcoholic beverages. All new restaurants, bars, or clubs –including national chains- are required to have this wall installed. The dining and tourism industries have asked this regulation be rescinded. (The purpose of this wall is to keep children from becoming alcoholics because they watched drinks being prepared.)

There is a 7 -seven- ton elephant in the room, which the LDS Church, governor, and legislature will not address. I will address it. That issue is prescription drug abuse, and the deaths from that abuse.

Nationally, 2.7 percent of the population abuse prescription drugs. (2010, National Institute of Health) In Utah (and in Texas, and in New York State) those rates are 4.08-4.45%, or double that of the national average. (2010, NIH) Utah ranks 4th in the nation for prescription drug abuse. More Americans, and more Utahans, die each year from prescription drug abuse than from alcohol or illegal drug use.

So what? Well, in Utah, you are 4 times more likely to die of prescription drug overdose than in a traffic accident, including a drunken driver accident. Prescription drug overdose is the number 1 cause of injury deaths in Utah. The Number One cause; it is ahead of motor vehicle fatalities, ahead of falls, ahead of gun violence. (2010, Utah Department of Health)

Our youth are extremely susceptible to prescription drug abuse. The National Institute of Health reports (2010) that 1 in 12 high school seniors have abused Vicodin, and 1 in 20 have abused OxyCotin. Seventy percent had obtained the drugs from the family medicine cabinet, or from a friend. We are guilty of addicting our children to drugs.

Where is the outcry from our Governor, our legislature, and the LDS Church? They have been very silent about the prescription drug abuse issue, even though it causes more deaths than alcohol. Utah prides itself on being a “Family Values” state, and one of the concerns about alcohol abuse is how it affects the children. However, again, 70% of the high school seniors get their drugs from the family medicine cabinet. Why are the legislative and religious leaders of the state not addressing this easy access issue?

Why are they -the Governor, Legislature, LDS Church- silent about this issue? Here is one thought: alcohol is used, (or abused) by a minority of Utah’s residents, which the LDS Church refers to as Gentiles; those who are not members of the Church. Prescription drug abuse crosses all lines of demarcation, all lines of religion, politics, age, sex, or income. Writing legislation that inconveniences a minority is easy; you really don’t need their votes to be in office. Writing legislation, or enacting a PR campaign that makes the majority uncomfortable, is not good for the election.

What, then, do I propose? First, I ask our legislature to look at the leading cause of injury death in Utah. I ask them to put strong money into mental health clinics; to promote prescription drug abuse programs as strongly as they promote alcohol abuse programs. I propose that we, as a nation, remove the stigma that is attached to using professional help to address our inner conflicts and turmoil. We need our insurance companies to accept that good mental health is as important as good physical health. Americans need to accept that they, their spouse or child may need a therapist as much as they need a doctor.
Our religious leaders need to have resources they can use to refer members who need mental health assistance, much as they do now for those who need medical or financial assistance. As adults, we need to make sure that the medicine cabinet is monitored. We should know what medications are in there, and we should ask questions if they start to disappear. In fine, we need to be parents to our children.

Yes, alcohol kills needlessly. Prescription drug abuse is more widely spread in Utah then alcohol abuse and it kills more people in Utah than alcohol. Let’s act on prescription drug abuse, and stop focusing on additional alcohol regulation.

Do you have an opinion, or an idea? Post it!


* The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has requested, in any article mentioning the Church, that the first entry use the full name; following entries may use common abbreviations (LDS, Mormons, etc.)

Source: National Institute of Health http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/topics-in-brief/prescription-drug-abuse , Downloaded Jan 24, 2014

Source: ibid

Source: Utah Department of Health http://www.useonlyasdirected.org/articles/read/PRESCRIPTION_DRUGS_ARE_KILLING_MORE_THAN_PAIN , downloaded Jan 24, 2014

Eighty One Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety Six

The world’s one remaining superpower has the dubious distinction of being the most dangerous. America has a gun fantasy, a dream built on death and destruction. In America, you are more likely to be a victim of gun violence than in any of the other developed countries.

You are twenty times more likely to be killed by a gun in the United States than in Spain, France, or Switzerland. Or Finland, Norway, Syria, Turkey or any of the other OECD countries. 20 times more likely to be killed by a gun. It bears repeating: Twenty times more likely to be killed by a gun, in the United States of America. Only motor vehicle accidents overshadow this figure, and not by much.
Why?

In 2010, homicide/suicide by gun was the 2nd largest cause of death in the United States. Are we, are you, proud of this figure?
I am not. But, sadly, it gets worse. Much worse, in fact.

In 2012, 81,396 Americans were injured in firearm-related accidents. Injured, not killed. Nationally, 25.93 percent of the injuries treated in ERs were gun-related. More than ¼ of our ER injury incidents are firearm related. Eighty one thousand, three hundred ninety six; were any of them your friends or neighbors? And, this has a cost, a cost you and I are paying.

Dead people do not use hospitals. But, the wounded do. They do, to the incredible amount of $632,000,000 in 2010. No misprint, there: six hundred thirty two MILLION dollars in ER/hospitalization was spent in 2010 for gun-related injuries. In America, the land of the free, and the home of the brave. $632,000,000.

Who pays for this 632 million dollars? Well, you and I do. 52%-327 million dollars- was paid by Medicaid. Our government insurance program for the poor paid for 52% of the gun related injuries in America. What could we do with 327 million for education, or to feed the poor?

Guns are big business, make no mistake about that. The firearm industry in the United States has 233,000 employees, more than GM has worldwide. The ancillary business -not the sale of firearms- accounts for $32,000,000 dollars in business annually. The gun business is good (?) for the American economy.
America manufactures 6.5 MILLION guns (non-military) each year, and if that was not enough, we import 3.5 million from other countries.
Why?
The trend is not in hunting rifles, that has fallen 20% over the last 10 years. We are buying assault weapons, pistols, and shotguns.
Why? What, or who, makes us so paranoid?

It is time, America, to deal with this issue. This is not a Second Amendment issue, this is a social disaster. It is not about your right to bear arms, it is about 81,396 of your friends and neighbors. It is about $632,000,000 in hospital costs; costs fueled by guns. It is time, past time, for America to sit down, discuss, and then work to solve the issues that fuel gun violence; poverty, discrimination, drug trade and the stigma of mental health issues. It is time to roll up our sleeves and go to work. America put a man on the moon in 10 years, can we not donate 10 years to solve our firearm violence problem? Are we so beholden to the gun industry, to the NRA, that we cannot overcome this problem?

Let’s talk, America; let us put the guns down and get to work.

Disclaimer: I own two sport rifles, locked up in a gun cabinet.
Second disclaimer: This article does not include bb/pellet gun injuries.

As always, I appreciate your views, and your discussion. Please post your comments, let us have a discussion.

Sources, not in any particular order:
CDC http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html on jan 16 2014

Data Source: NEISS All Injury Program operated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for numbers of injuries. Bureau of Census for population estimates.

Urban institute. http://www.urban.org/publications/412894.html
article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/taxpayers-gun-violence_n_3915434.html

United Nations: Source http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.htmlus

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

CDC http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10lcid_unintentional_deaths_2010-a.pdf

Source: ATF

On Playgrounds, Oil, and Bombs

Each of us has a desire to create our lives, as we want them to be and to have others see everything as we do. As we mature, we realize this is not how life works. We learn to compromise, discuss, listen, play by the rules, and negotiate. We tend to avoid those who have not reached this level of maturity and we regard them as bullies. I am sure you can remember such a schoolyard bully, perhaps thinking to yourself; someday he will get what is coming to him. Sadly, governments can also become bullies.

In 1933, The Imperial Government of Persia granted at 60-year lease to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a company now known as British Petroluem, to develop the Persian oil fields in return for a percentage of profits to Persia (Iran). Over time, the Iranians felt they were not receiving all the monies due them and, in 1951, the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, nationalized the oil industry. The International Court of Justice ruled in 1952 that it had no jurisdiction in the matter, as the agreement was between Iran and a company, not between Iran and the United Kingdom. The governments of Britain (under Churchill) and the United States (under Eisenhower) decided it was in their national best interests to force Iran to honor the 1933 agreement. At first, a boycott of Iranian oil was used to cause econmic unrest; but that failed to produce the desired result. The two superpowers then decided it was time to change Iran’s elected government, with the knowledge and very reluctant support of Shah Mohammad-Reza.

The coup d’etat, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad Coup, was organized using the assets of MI6 (British) and the CIA (US). On August 15, 1953, these plans were set into operation. It appeared at first to be a failure; Mosaddegh appeared to still be in control, and the Shah of Iran, Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi left the country. Using paid thugs, on-ground MI6/CIA operatives set a second plan into operation; Mosaddegh was arrested on August 20th; and the Shah returned on August 22nd, accompianed by Alan Dulles, the director of the CIA. Upon returning to the Peacock Throne, the Shah strengthened his regime by placing political opponents under surveillance and repressing dissident movements ruthlessly, with the help of the SAVAK or secret police. (The CIA helped to establish the SAVAK upon the return of the Shah.) In 1955, the CIA assigned Major General Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. to train the senior SAVAK agents. The Shah remained in power until his overthrow in January 1979 by the Islamic Revolution. During his reign, the Shah did much to improve Iran, most notably by public education (however, this created a great number of educated, unemployed citizens). He championed woman’s suffrage; the enlargement of industry, including technology; a free school nutrition program, and diplomatic and cultural relationships with other nations. During this time, he enjoyed considerable support from the United States, with an emphasis on financial and military aid (which began to decline during his last three years of power). His reign was not entirely benign however; there was dissatisfaction with his “western enlightenment”, particularly from the Islamic fundamentalists. Politically, his greatest error was in the establishment of a one-party policital system, the Rastakhiz Party, the citizens could either be a member of the party, or they could leave the country.

This history explains, perhaps, why the Iranian citizens hold western governments, and particularly the United States, in very low regard. Perhaps, from an Iranian point of view, this explains the “Iranian Hostage Crisis” at the end of President Carter’s term of office. In light of this history, perhaps we can understand (I didn’t say agree with) why the Islamic Revolution in Iran was so widely accepted by the citizens of Iran.

Recent history has shown that the administrations after the fall of the Shah have displayed a decidely anti-western bias. The western governments have become increasingly concerned about Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon, and rightfully (perhaps hypocritically) so. As Paul Harvey used to say, “here’s the rest of the story.”

We gave them that technology, that nuclear knowledge. We did it at the highest level of government, and we have been doing it since 1957, under President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” program. In 1967, under President Johnson, we provided Iran with 5.545 kg of enriched uranium and 112 g of plutonium. I mentioned earlier that the Shah had brought advanced tecnology to his country. Try this one on for size: in the 70’s, the Shah proposed 20 nuclear power plants. That’s right, a country with some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves wanted 20 nuclear plants! An advertisement announcing this ran in US magazines, sponsored by the nuclear industry in the United States. In 1974, Kraftwerk Union (a subsidary of Seimens AG, a German company) began construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. In 1975 MIT (yes, THAT MIT) contracted to train Iran’s nuclear engineers! Did you hear that on the nightly news?

Co-operation with all western governments and companies stopped with the Islamic Revolution in 1979. That did not stop the Iranian nuclear programs however, they just switched vendors, to Russia and China. In 1990, Russia and Iran began discussions for completion of the Bushehr nuclear plant. China, in 1993, provided Iran with a turn-key HT-6B Tokamak fusion reactor, which was installed at the Plasma Physics Research Centre of Azad University. Iran and China informed the IAEA of plans for a nuclear enrichment facility in Iran in 1996, but China withdrew from the project, under U.S. diplomatic pressure. Yes, Virginia, diplomacy does work. Bill Clinton was President.

From 1996 until December of 2002 very little detail has been published about the Iranian nuclear programs. In December of 2002 the United States accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons and Iran, denying the claim, responded by offering "full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD." This offer was made through the Swiss Ambassador to the United States. The United States, under President George W. Bush, refused the offer and criticized the Swiss Ambassador for making the presentation. Iran installed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President in August 2005 and we are off to the races. Ahmadinejad was a holocaust denier, who stated that Israel had no right to exist, and that he would use whatever means necessary to remove Israel from the face of the earth. Additionally, he proclaimed that Iran had the right to create and use nuclear weapons, because Israel had them. This rhetoric, coupled with a certain degree of paranoia in Washington, precluded any real talks from occurring between the U.S. and Iran until August 2013, when Hassan Rouhani became President of Iran. Almost immediately, the rhetoric cooled and serious negotiations regarding the reduction of nuclear capability and the lifting of sanctions began. These negotiations (drafted by Iran, the United States, Britain, China, Russia, France and Germany) concluded in December 2013, with an agreement that would allow international inspection; Iran would stop enriching urianum beyond the point required for use as fuel in nuclear power plants, and would remove or destroy all uranium enriched beyond that point. In return, limited sanctions would be lifted; some humanitarian aid would be allowed into Iran and certain financial assests currently frozen would be released. Additionally, Iran would be able to sell oil on the world stage again.

In Ronald Reagan’s words, “Trust, but verify.” This is what the agreement from Geneva allows. The sanctions currently imposed upon Iran have been effective in almost collapsing Iran’s economy, and the current Iranian government knows that. Sanctions would be lifted in agreed-upon stages, and only after Iran proves that it is performing as agreed. If the government of Iran does not comply strictly to the terms of the Geneva accord, the sanctions come back full force, and Iran is back to stage one. So where does this leave us?

On January 12, 2014, Iran announced to the world that on January 20, 2014 it would begin reducing its stockpile of super enriched uranium, as the first step in the Geneva agreement. That date, January 20, 2014, begins the 6 month timetable for Iran to complete it’s reduction program and meet all the terms of the agreement. The Geneva agreement also requires that Iran continue to allow IAEA inspectors full access as Iran proceeds with its nuclear power program, with the caveat that further lifting of sanctions is dependant upon strictly following the Geneva agreement, international guidelines and not devloping nuclear weapons.

This sounds like a great win for world acceptance of international establishments like the IAEA and a great win for President Obama’s diplomatic efforts. Some in Congress, on both sides of the isle, greeted this news with an unexpected response: they are pushing for even tougher sanctions against Iran, to show Iran we mean business. Of course they say these new tougher sanctions will not be put in place unless Iran does not comply with the Geneva accords. Others believe this action, at this time, would be detrimental to continued improvement in Iran’s behaviour. President Obama has promised he will veto any new sanction legislation passed by Congress if Iran is in compliance with the Geneva accords.

Perhaps it is time for the United States Congress to stop being the playground bully. Remember, we started this whole mess back in 1953 when we overthrew a democratically elected government. Let us now take the high road, let us allow Iran time to show the world it can and will co-operate on the world stage, that it can follow the Geneva accords, and let us cool off this potential world flash point.

It’s time for the United States to undo some of the damage we did in 1953. It is time to stop being the bully.

Your thoughts and comments are appreciated, and welcome. I enjoy, and look forward to, a good discussion.

Equal Rights, Anyone?

In response to the equal rights discussion currently being held in Utah, state Senator Stephen Urquhart (R-Washington county district 29) has again proposed a bill that would make housing and job discrimination, based on sexual orientation, illegal in Utah. A television and web advertising campaign is now under way to defeat his bill.

First Freedom Coalition (which I will refer to as FFC) has posted a webpage (http://fairtoall.org/) where they list their concerns and issues with this proposed legislation. The three TV advertisements they are currently running against this bill also are posted on the webpage, as is their First Freedoms Compact. Here are the 5 items in the First Freedom Compact, and my thoughts on those items.

“First Freedoms
All people in a free society share equally the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and the right to make a living.”
I could not agree more with this statement! All people, I believe, should have all these rights, without discrimination. Unfortunately, in Utah, it is currently legal to discriminate in those areas if someone is of a sexual orientation that is not strictly heterosexual. I would not want to be denied an apartment based on my sexual orientation, what about you?

“Tolerance
Pluralism within a free society requires all people to adopt a “live and let live” approach to secular and religious expressions intended for the betterment of mankind. This is especially true when people of varying beliefs disagree about those expressions.”
Then by all means, be tolerant. Be tolerant of those of a different nationality, race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation. Be willing to have an open discussion, and listen to other points of view. Does anyone else remember “you can’t trust anyone over 30?”

“Fairness
All people are to be treated reasonably and with fairness in their public and commercial interactions. No single group should be elevated to a “special class” above others with special rights that infringe on the first freedoms of everyone else.”
I believe we have hit upon the real core point that FFC is striving to make. No one, least of all Senator Urquhart, is trying to create a “special class” above any other. All his bill will do is make discrimination against people, because of their sexual orientation, illegal in Utah.

“Mutual Respect
Conflicting rights are inherent in a free society, and conflicts requiring public mediation should be handled rationally, respectfully and lawfully. Rational disagreements on sensitive issues are not justification for accusations of hatred, intolerance or bigotry.”
I agree that a lot of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry has been shown on the same sex marriage issue. Reading the op-ed, letters to the editor, or comments section of The Salt Lake Tribune, one can see both sides behaving in a disrespectful manner, with some writers being very intolerant of another’s viewpoint. In the discussion of mutual respect, should we not also have respect for people whose sexual orientation is different from ours? Should we respect their rights as much as we expect them to recognize ours? I believe we should.

”The Common Good
Governance in a free society must differentiate between private and public concerns – respecting the right of people to work out their lives as they see fit while also respecting public policies intended to protect freedom and advance the common good.”
Indeed, the common good. Let’s talk about the difference between private and public concerns. By accepted legal definition, a business with less than 15 employees, that does not do business with any governmental agency, or accepts any government payment (such as TANF) is a private concern. Mom and dad renting out the studio apartment over the garage is a private concern. A private college that does not accept government money for any of its programs, or accept government payment for tuition; this is a private concern. A public concern is one that deals with the public, such as a transit agency, a utility, a business (with more than 15 employees) selling its goods and services to the general public. A university that uses public grants for research, or accepts federal student loans, is a public concern. An apartment complex of five units or more, renting to the general public, is a public concern. The corner store that accepts TANF is a public concern.

Regarding the advertisements produced by FFC: in one, the case is made that a photographer was fined for not photographing at same sex commitment ceremony. Although, as it was argued in court, the company had an unwritten policy not to be a participant in any same sex ceremony, that was not disclosed to one of the participants. In another, the baker did not disclose in his advertisements that he would not prepare wedding cakes for a same sex couple. In both cases, a simple written policy, a simple written declaration, would have been sufficient to have the cases thrown out in court. Don’t get me wrong, I have been involved in small business since I have been able to wash dishes. I’ve built them, I’ve watched them succeed, I’ve watched them fail. But one thing I know, PUT IT IN WRITING. Another video talks about discrimination, by facility, of a student at Missouri State University. She had refused an assignment, based upon her faith; the University held up her rights, after a lawsuit was filed.

One video really disturbs me. It talks about setting up a “special class”, saying that the new law proposed by Senator Urguhart sets up a special class that is above other people in the country. This is, as near as I can tell, complete bulls**t. This legislation is designed to reduce discrimination against people of same-sex relationships. This legislation says a gay couple cannot refuse to rent an apartment to me, a heterosexual, based on my sexual orientation. It says that a florist cannot refuse to arrange the flowers for me because I am a heterosexual, again, based on my sexual preference.

Do I have a dog in this fight? No, and yes. I am in a heterosexual relationship, my wife and I own our home (with the bank), and I see no problems on the horizon created by our relationship. However, when I moved to Utah in the mid 70’s with a significant other, we were denied housing and bank accounts because we could not produce a marriage license.

Discrimination is wrong, whatever the basis. Agree or disagree, I welcome your comments.

Wasting Taxpayer's money, Utah style

Utah is a place of spectacular beauty and grace, from the granite peaks of the Wasatch to the red rocks of Zion National Park, lakes and streams, deserts and forests. I consider myself fortunate to be living in this place, at this time. Now I am watching history unfold in Utah, an historical event I never thought I would see.

On November 2, 2004, Utah, and indeed all of the United States, held elections. One of the items on Utah’s ballot was Amendment 3 to the Utah State Constitution; the Amendment reads as follows:
”Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.” (Utah Constitution, Article 1 Section 29).

This amendment passed, 65.86% in favor. So that makes it majority rule, correct? Not so fast. . . only 57.21% of the registered voters turned out for the election. That’s right folks, 37.68% of those registered to vote decided what a marriage should be. (Utah voted George Bush for president, 71.54%, the highest percentage in the United States to vote for Bush) (2004 Presidential Election Results)

My grandmother used to say that all things of value take time. On December 20, 2013, Federal Judge Robert J. Shelby wrote a decision that brought equal rights to Utah. “The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry,” wrote Shelby, “and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason.” (Dallasvoice.com)

I’ve listened, carefully, to the arguments against same-sex marriage.

One of the State of Utah’s arguments was that the state is promoting relationships that can procreate, it was in the best interest of the state to license only those relationships that can result in offspring. This, as you may imagine, created a groundswell of opposition. There are many people who desire to be joined as a married couple who cannot, or do not desire, to procreate. My wife and I are both now medically sterile, does that mean the state is not interested in our marriage? Two of my friends became a married couple and made the decision not to have children before they were married. Should the state have denied them a marriage license?

There is the argument that “this is the way it has always been.” This argument went to the gutter a long time ago, when slavery became illegal; when women were franchised to vote, and when the Jim Crow laws were declared illegal.

Then, there is the argument that homosexuality is forbidden for Christians. Could someone please give me the scripture passage where Jesus said that? I cannot find it, however I can find Christ saying, love they neighbor as thyself. Second to that, not all people in the United States are Christian, and not all sects of Christianity have the same views regarding same sex marriage. (Regarding other religions, I apologize, but I have no training or knowledge of other religious groups’ views on same sex marriages.)

One of the most vocal arguments is that “same sex marriage destroys traditional marriage.” I don’t understand this point of view. What another couple does in the privacy of their own home does not damage my marriage. It does not demean my marriage, in truth, it does not affect me at all.

The rights of marriage are many, including: the right of jointly owned property, to make decisions regarding the end-of-life cycle, to file taxes as a married couple, to adopt a child, to be declared eligible for insurance under a spouse’s employer, to have your marriage recognized in all 50 states, and so forth. The least of those is the sexual relationship between the people married.

I cannot understand the thought process that denies marriage to those of the same sex, any more than I could understand the thought process that denied the rights of marriage to those of different races. And yet, that is what Utah is want to do. Upon being sworn in as our “Interim” Attorney General, Sean Reyes told a press conference that his office would continue to press this case, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, no matter now much it costs. The recent estimate from the AG’s office is $2 MILLION, for an outside law firm to assist the AG’s office.

So this is how Utah is wasting taxpayer money? Trying to legislate some “morality” at a high cost to the taxpayers; while we remain dead last in per-pupil spending on K-12 education? This is Governor Herbert’s “best managed state” in action?

I don’t think so.
Your comments are appreciated.


Downloaded from: http://le.utah.gov/code/CONST/htm/00I01_002900.htm on December 25, 2013

Downloaded from: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2004&datatype=national&def=1&f=0&off=0&elect=0 on December 25, 2013

Downloaded from: http://www.dallasvoice.com/utah-gay-marriage-ban-struck-unconstitutional-10164201.html on December 25, 2013

UPDATE: Monday, January 6, 2014: The United States Supreme Court issued a stay in this matter, until an expedited hearing could review the case.

UPDATE: Tuesday, January 14, 2014: U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern, Oklahoma, has struck down the Oklahoma ban on same-sex marriage, and immediately stayed his order, pending review by the 10th circuit court of appeals.

UPDATE: January 16, 2014. Utah State Tax Commission reverses itself, says same sex married couples can files jointly on 2013 State tax returns.