One of Those Days

 Amidst a country struggling with religious, political, and moral strife, it is difficult to find a subject that exalts and promotes some of  the normal, everyday events; something that takes us away from our screens, our often sour and bitter rants and disagreements. 

Today is one of those days. The idea began in the Spokane Central Methodist Episcopal Church in the early 1900's, when Sonora Smart Dodd listened to a sermon on the values of Mother's Day. Sonora was the oldest of 6 children, her mother had died during the birth of her sixth child when Sonora was 16 years old. Like any person would, she assisted her father, a civil war veteran, in the raising of her five brothers; and she was in awe of the wonderful job her father had done raising the family. She approached the Spokane Ministerial Alliance about having a day dedicated to fathers, and on June 19, 1910, Spokane WA celebrated the first Father's Day. President Lyndon Johnson signed a Presidential Proclamation in 1966 declaring the third Sunday in June Father's Day, and President Richard Nixon established a permanent national observance on the third Sunday in June as Father's Day in 1972.   

As I said, today is one of those days. I thank God for our son, who is quietly exhibiting all of the characteristics of a good, no, make that great, father. His three children are shown the love, care, and strength of good parenting each and every day. Mike and his wife are raising their children in an atmosphere of education, love, and happiness. He takes the time to explain the whys and hows of the world to them, while showing by example the manner in which good people live in harmony with others. When difficulties arise, as they do in all families, rather than sit around moaning and blaming some "other" or some outside force, he responds with great mental acuity and finds solutions to the problems. He is not afraid to admit when he is wrong, even to his children, and he is willing to do what it takes to set everything aright. He, and his wife, expect and assist their children to achieve goals, to be well-educated and compassionate. He encourages his children to explore their talents, and has not missed any extracurricular activities as the children progress through school. 

As you might surmise from the preceding paragraph, I am very proud of our son. Please join me in "raising a glass" to good Fathers everywhere! 

Thank you for reading; please share this page with anyone in your circle who might enjoy it. Please leave any comments or thoughts in the space below. 

Happy Father's Day! 

R. M. "Bob" Hartman

The Covenant School Mass Shooting Event

 The Covenant School, in Nashville Tennessee, now takes it place in a long line of sorrow. The United States of America witnessed its 129th mass shooting on Monday, March 27, 2023, with three adults and three children gunned down, and then the shooter killed by Nashville police. (A mass shooting is defined by the FBI as an incident in which four or more individuals are murdered by firearms involving one or more shooters.)

Where is the public outrage?

Covenant School, a private K-6 institution, instructs about 200 students. Now three students are dead. The shooter, who apparently planned the attack with some degree of accuracy, was armed with an assault-style rifle, an assault-style pistol, and a handgun, according to police on the scene.

Why does this keep occurring?

A friend of the shooter has told police she received a text about 1 hour before the event, in which the shooter explained she was going to die by suicide today, and it would be in the news. The friend called Nashville police to report the incident. It has not been made public yet how the police responded to that information.

The President and other government officials have, as usual offered "thoughts and prayers."

Three 9-year old children and three middle-aged adults are dead. Shot by a person who may have had some mental instability, armed with assault-style weapons and "a massive amount" of ammunition.

Jim Jordan wants to investigate Hunter Biden's laptop.

There are no simple one and done solutions to the gun violence issue in the United States of America. It is inconceivable to me in a country with the ability to divide the atom, put a man on the moon, and lead the world's democratic nations, we cannot even begin to have a logical, solution-oriented discussion on this subject.

In stark contrast to the Uvalde shooting last May, the police were on the scene and killed the shooter within 14 minutes of the first active shooter phone call. Truly, a remarkably fast and effective response; they deserve congratulations for a job well done, in a very difficult situation.

What is so difficult to understand? The American public is tired of mass shooting events.

The typical, reliable, non-effective non-responses will be forthcoming. Thoughts and prayers will come from every politician's lips, and empty promises of action. Some will proclaim it is a mental health issue, others will proclaim it a gun control issue, and nothing-absolutely nothing-will be done. Congress, in a fashion we are well schooled in, will not upset its donors or vocal minorities.

It's of paramount importance to defend America against woke ideologies.

As I said earlier, there is no one and done on this issue. There are definite, concrete steps forward that will begin to reduce the mass shootings in this country; they sadly will require two items Congress currently doesn't have.

Leadership and testicles.

It "only" took 15 ballots and 4 days to elect Kevin McCarthy Speaker of the House. According to Speaker McCarthy, this shows that republicans know how to govern. WHAT?

You all know I have opinions, some of which you might not agree with, but I encourage and look forward to that polite dissent. So here is my laundry list of items for Congress to enact.

The Second Amendment states, and I quote; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing I propose here is designed to interfere with the Second Amendment, nor do I propose to interfere with that document.

All of these should be introduced as single line bills, that is, the only issue on the bill is (this one). In this manner, a Congressman's constituents will be able to judge where he or she sits on each issue.

Just prior to the voting on each bill, the Congressman or woman will state for the record the total amount of money he or his campaigns have accepted from any gun lobby, weapons manufacturer, sporting groups, or any pro-gun organization, for the entire time he/she has been in politics.

The first item on Congress' to-do list is to mandate health insurance companies to provide, at the same rate as physical health, mental health checkups and treatment.

The next item would be to enact national red flag laws; this would alleviate a person not eligible to own a gun in one state from purchasing one in another state.

Next, institute universal background checks, including gun shows and individual sales, to refuse the sale of firearms to those not qualified to possess them.

Congress shall mandate all weapons manufactured after the enactment of this bill shall have biometric trigger locks installed at the time of manufacture.

Trigger locks shall be required on all pre-owned firearms sold by any person or firm.

Repeal the "Firearm Owner's Protection Act" of 1986; then institute a mandated national registry of firearms sold by any source from this date forward.

Liability insurance shall be mandated for all firearms owned.

Renew the assault weapons ban, and place a ban on high-capacity magazines.

Well, there you have it, my partial solutions to the gun violence issue in this country. I am not supportive of confiscation of firearms (except under lawful mandate of the court); nor am I anti-gun-ownership. I enjoy target shooting, have enjoyed hunting, and see not reason for others not to enjoy the same. I am also realistic enough to understand the probability of any of the above happening is slim to none. But, what the heck, I thought I'd put it out there anyway.

Thanks for reading, I am looking forward to your responses. To leave a comment, just click the word "comment" in the space below.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

Education, and Some Thoughts Thereon

Before I begin this article: I am not an educator, nor are my spouse or our children. I do have nuclear family that works, and has worked, in many aspects of education, for which I am grateful. 

Education, more specifically public education, is in the news almost daily. Loud voices shouting to be heard in a public square trying to be the dominate role in spending public money and educating the vast majority of America's youth. I've some thoughts I'd like to share with you; I hope this provokes thought on your part, and discussion between you, your families, neighbors, school boards, and politicians. And please, don't leave your children out of the discussion! 

A free, public education is an idea that was new and untried when this country was founded. The balance of the civilized world saw no need for the masses to know any more than was necessary for their daily lives and employments or servitudes. It took a long time, and a great deal of protesting, fighting, court action, governmental decrees and just plain old fashioned hard work for our educational system to reach the point it is at today. Now, don't stop reading at this point. Take a deep breath and continue with me. In no small part, America's experiment with an educated populace has lead to some of the greatest changes in education worldwide; it is now the norm for children to go to public schools in most developed, and many developing,  countries. (We could pause here to pat ourselves on the back for leading the world in this regard, but, we have other items on the agenda.)

It has become a revolting national pastime to fault public schools, and the teachers therein, for all of societies evils and ills; to accuse them with charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty, improper education, grooming, etc., ad nauseam. Politicians, pundits,  TV personalities, podcasters, and commentators who should in fact have a better grip on reality jump on these perceived iniquities to rack up click points, ratings, and cash, spreading these and other perverse embellished fabrications to forward their own political, financial or social agendas.

Regarding the above, I can hear my Grandmother (who was, by the way, a teacher herself) saying "They are lying to you, Robert. Just lying to you."

It is abhorrent, to any rational mind, for school board meetings to be destroyed by a dullard with a microphone proclaiming without evidence or fact that K-12 educators are teaching Critical Race Theory. The idea, spread by nefarious individuals with an axe to grind and no wood that need splitting, that the educators of our youth are grooming them to some perceived homosexual agenda is disgusting beyond words. (I wrote about litter boxes in classrooms in a previous article.) Demanding that certain books be removed from classrooms on the basis of a sentence, paragraph, or character taken out of context displays not a high moral stance or great intellectual prowess; instead ignorance, fear of new or strange ideas, and lack of cognitive reasoning skills are showcased for the world to see. Clamoring for history, both world and American, to be taught as it was in 1950, is to ignore reality and places our youth at a great disadvantage relative to interaction with the peoples of other countries in our shared world. To declare that The United States of America is and always has been perfect in every detail, and that education should develop around that thought, is to deny the very first sentence in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:". . . in Order to form a more perfect Union. . . ".

At times, the people screaming the loudest at school board meetings about these perceived faults do not even have students in the schools controlled by that particular school board. They are simply following some item of interest from social media. (In Utah, our legislature just tried banning children under the age of 13 from using social media. Perhaps we should ban the parents from the same.) The inability of the protestors to show proof of the nonsensical claims they make evidently does not embarrass them in the least; it seems to be a badge of honor to say, "just do the research and you will find I'm right." Reality finds in most cases they are not right. It doesn't appear they have an agenda to correct the imagined faults (other than to fire teachers and school board members), they are just interested in causing confusion and disruption. Some, however, do have an agenda; they want education, and in fact the country, turned back to what they grew up with in the 1950's or early 60's. 

Our country, and the world around us, is changing at lightning speed. The internet, cell phones, satellite technology, even the pandemic cause structural and interpersonal changes unprecedented in our history. The factual changes in the demographics of our country, the increase of business and employment opportunities around the world, and the immediacy of today's news reporting, has laid open what is to some an unthinkable and unbearable reality; we are a more diverse nation than previously understood, and we are not a perfect nation by any standard of civilization. Education, more exactly public education is one tool we have as a country to help us keep up with the changes, innovations and discoveries rapidly affecting our lives. Rather than destroy the educational system that is addressing and teaching about these innovations, changes, discoveries and actualities, rather than strip educators of the tools and resources they need to prepare our youth to enter college, adulthood, employment and the challenges they will face in the near future, we need to enhance our children's educational opportunities, and support our public schools, the teachers, staff, and administrators therein, and push back against those who would, out of fear and ignorance, deprive our youth of the same opportunities we had growing up and being educated in public schools. Our parents, and the leaders of this country in the past, tried to provide us with the best education possible at the time. It is our responsibility to do the same for the youth of today; it is our duty to give all of our youth every opportunity possible to enjoy the Great American Dream.  

And before I leave you, dear reader, here are some FACTs for you to digest. Regardless of all the talk about how our schools are failing, how our children are not getting the same education we ourselves received, the facts tell a different story. 

The average SAT scores for high school students in 1972 were: Math, 509; Critical reading, 530. The average SAT scores for 2021 (the last year available) were: Math, 528; Critical reading, 533. The lowest average score for Math was 492, in 1981; for Critical reading 494 in 2016. The highest average scores for both were in 2021. 

I do have a response I use when someone tells me about the CRT education, the Great White Replacement Theory, the grooming of our children, etc. I simply and quietly ask for the source material they are sharing.  

Thank you for reading, I do appreciate your taking the time to hear me out, particularly on this divisive and challenging subject. I also appreciate any comments you would like to leave, just click on the word "comments" in the white box below. 

R. M. "Bob" Hartman

Edit: The SAT scores shown above are national averages, I have added the word average where appropriate. Thank  you PJA 02/05/2023 RMH

          

     

HB 215- The Utah Legislature's Hand Empties Your Wallet Program.

 It's all over but the crying, and the lawsuits. Governor Spencer "the Spineless" Cox has signed HB215 into law. Now we go to the courts, and Utah will spend an uncountable amount of money trying to defend a bill that never should have been written. 

It's a monetary tragedy write large on the backs of Utah taxpayers. A "law" that sends twice as much money to a private religious school as to a public school, with little to no regard as to the qualifications of the private school. In this piece of legislation, and yes I have read it, if there are less than 150 paid employees in the private school, there is no requirement for teaching credentials or for passing a background check. 

My grandchildren's public school receives $4,038.00 for each and every child enrolled. Move the children to a local charter or private school, or "Qualified Provider" and that entity will receive $8,000.00 per student enrolled. Why? Because the legislature can do it and they can't be held accountable.  

So, does $8,000.00 pay for a years education at Judge Memorial Catholic High School in Salt Lake City? Nope. Here, from the school's web page, is the tuition and fee structure. 

Tuition, $13,950.00; Registration Fee $600.00; Enrollment Fee $100.00 the first year, $75.00 each year thereafter; Graduation Fee $150.00. Do the math, for a first-year student, the total is $14,650.00, the senior year, $14,775.00. All athletic fees, AP classes, busing, etc., are add-ons. Uniforms are not included. In total fairness to Judge Memorial, on the website it explains that scholarships and financial aid are available. So, will  the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program move a large number of new students to Judge Memorial? Probably not, there is still a big gap between the tuition/fees and the money provided by the program, a gap of $6,650.00. I don't think, for most families, the $8,000 from the UFASP will make the difference. What it does mean is the families of students already attending Judge Memorial, and every other private/charter/qualified provider educational provider have just been given an $8,000.00 gift from the Utah state taxpayers-that is, from you and I. 

What do the students have to do to receive this gift? Simply apply. The "qualifications" for this scholarship are basically non-existent. If you are a student in the great state of Utah, you qualify. The majority of  other states that offer vouchers tie the voucher to income limits; and/or limit the amount of the voucher to the amount of the Weighted Pupil Unit (WPU) for that year. Utah, in its constant effort to be special, is the only state I could find that does not take either  of those factors into account. Many of  voucher programs in other states are tax credit programs, as opposed Utah's payment program.

Utah now joins 16 states and the District of Columbia in providing school choice vouchers; although some, like Utah, call them  scholarships, The name doesn't matter, it's all the same shell game. Take taxpayer education money and give it to private schools. 

The Utah Fits All Scholarship Program? It should be called The Utah Legislature's Hand Empties Your Wallet Program. 

I'm pretty sure some lawsuits will be filed, if I find out about them, I will post an article. 

Thanks for reading, your comments are always welcome. Just click on the word "comment" in the white box below. 

R. M. "Bob" Hartman

Source: Education Commission of the States.

Your Child's Life

 Twenty-five years ago, the chemo that "cured" our son's leukemia took his life. I remember all too well the anguish, pain, and anger I felt then; the emotions I experienced I would never condemn another to suffer. Suffice it to say that I felt I had failed him; as his parent, I was supposed to keep him safe, to prevent bad things from happening to him. In our society, at this time and place, parents are not supposed to bury their children. But, we did.

Which makes it all the more confusing to me; during this deadly pandemic, when science has proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that masks help slow the spread of this killer virus, why parents are "up in arms" when masks in schools are discussed. Why would you not want to protect your children?

Speaking of protection, we have vaccines available for all people 12 years of age or more. So, what is keeping people from getting a pin pick that will save your life, and the lives of those around you? Why would you not have your child vaccinated?

Friends have told me they are afraid of the possibility of a side effect from the vaccine. Let's put this in perspective, shall we? You have a 1 in 200,000 chance of a negative reaction to the vaccines. A 1 in 500 chance of dying from Covid, if you are not vaccinated. You have a 1 in 107 chance of dying in an automobile accident. Yet, you still drive, right? I thought so. To be perfectly honest about it, all of the excuses for not getting vaccinated fall apart under similar scrutiny.

There was not, and still is not, a vaccine to prevent cancer. No mask would have prevented my son's death.

You, however, have a choice. You can have you child wear a mask, and you can have your child vaccinated. You can wear a mask and be vaccinated yourself.

Isn't you child's life worth it?

Thanks for reading, as always your thought and comments are welcome.

RM "Bob" Hartman

Problems and Solutions

 

So, there is a “Situation” or a “Problem” at the southern border,

which it is depends on who you are listening to.

Record high numbers of unaccompanied minors are crossing the 

border. Most of these children are not from Mexico; they are from 

Guatemala, Honduras, or other Central American countries. The 

distance from Mexico's southern border to the US border is 

approximately 1,125 miles. 

The Republicans are blaming the high number of unaccompanied 

minors now crossing the border on President Biden’s so-called 

rollback of the Trump administration’s immigration policies. They 

are calling on the President to send the children back to Mexico and 

let Mexico deal with them. 

President Biden has stated, and I concur, that it would be immoral 

and un-American to refuse the children, and send them back over to 

border into Mexico, where they could fall victim to human 

trafficking, or worse. So, they are being kept in Border Patrol 

facilities that were not designed for children, nor were they designed 

for such high levels of occupation. 

The Republican Party likes to portray itself as "Christian" and 

claims the high moral ground on such subjects as abortion. Frankly, I

find their stance on the unaccompanied minor issue on our southern 

border to be highly unChristian and totally lacking in morals of any 

recognizable form. 

If you are a parent or grandparent, can you imagine the stress and 

anguish of having to send your children, without adult supervision, 

to walk to another country because there is no way to support them 

at home, or because the fear of violence is so great you fear more for 

their lives if they stay with you? How desperate would you have to 

be to tell your child to walk 1,125 miles, unaccompanied, hoping 

they would make it to and be welcome in the United States? 

There is nothing moral, ethical, or Christian about turning these 

minors away. So instead of blaming President Biden for the 

"problem", why don't you moral Christian Republicans work on a 

solution? Maybe hire some construction companies to go down to 

the border, let's build some dormitories, schools and admin offices 

and work on getting these CHLDREN taken care of? (Construction 

work-good American jobs, I'm told.)

Jesus said, "Let us love one another," and "Do unto others as you 

would have them do unto you."

Think about it. Then tell your Congressman what you think.

Thank you for reading, as always, your comments are welcome and 

appreciated. 

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

Children's Health Insurance Program in Utah

Let’s talk about children, everybody has some or knows someone who does. A recent study exposed this nasty fact; there are 82,000 children in Utah who do not have health insurance. So, Utah’s legislature, the source of so much useless knowledge, has decided it is the parent’s fault because they don’t know about CHIP, the Childhood Health Insurance Program.

Currently, there is a bill in the Utah State Legislature to study this lack of knowledge “problem” and increase the distribution of information about the CHIP program, which provides insurance to those children whose family income does not exceed certain levels. This bill would allow the state to spend $173,000 per year, for a period of 5 years, to study the problem and provide outreach about the programs.

Here’s why I think our legislature is missing the mark-again.

The maximum gross income for a family of 4 to qualify for CHIP is $4,367 per month. If we assume that both parents work at minimum wage jobs, their gross income is $2600; and childcare takes $930 for two children. In all probability, one parent is going to stay home with the children to avoid the childcare cost. At this level, CHIP works for them.

Let’s bump the income level up a bit. Let’s put dad at $15.00 per hour, and mom at $11.00. Their gross income is $4506 per month. Childcare for 2 children still takes $930. Now, they don’t qualify for CHIP.  And, at this income level the family does not qualify for SNAP or federal student lunch programs. The average cost of health insurance in Utah for this family is $1614. If you add the cost of daycare to the insurance, the family is spending $2543 per month, leaving only $2000 per month for housing, food, and transportation.

No, Representative Welton, the problem is not that people don’t know about the programs; the problem is the extremely low-income cut-off for qualification in Utah. A “family values” state indeed.

You don’t need a focus group, legislative study group, or $173,000 per year for 5 years. All you need is common sense, a commodity that in short supply in our state legislators.

Thank you for reading, your comments are always welcome.

R.M. “Bob” Hartman

Taxes and Education in Utah, Again. Or, Say it ain’t so, Governor Herbert

"Cash-strapped Utah" has an income problem; that is, it needs more money (what's new) to continue supporting such deserving programs as keeping the gray wolf out of the state or moving the prison from potentially lucrative real estate to a swamp. It seems our sales tax base is eroding, for reasons the government did not say. Perhaps Utah citizens are buying more products online, and thereby not paying sales tax, or perhaps those citizens are cutting their personal spending because wages are not rising as fast as the cost of goods. But, the reasons for the downturn in sales tax revenue are not the subject of this muse. No, I'm looking at what Utah is proposing to do about the decreased revenue. 

The first item that comes to our legislature's collective mind, whenever money is concerned, seems to be how can we cut what we spend on education. Our legislature seems to have forgotten, or better said, have never read Thomas Jefferson (he's one of those Founding Fathers we love so much here in the Beehive state) on the subject of Education: 

The tax which will be paid for [the] purpose [of education] is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance. --Thomas Jefferson to George Wythe, 1786.

Back in 1930, voters in Utah agreed, and passed a constitutional amendment:
“All revenue from taxes on intangible property or from a tax on income shall be used to support the systems of public education and higher education as defined in Article X, Section 2.” (Utah State Constitution, Article XIII, Section 5(5))

There you have it, in black and white. The citizens of Utah voted to pay for education by committing all the state income tax to education. Perhaps, back in 1930, there was no need to offer incentives to draw business to our state; perhaps they didn’t need to incentivize extractive industries, perhaps they didn’t need to make our real estate moguls more money, or perhaps there were no gray wolves threatening them. (OK, enough with the wolves.)

Anyway, the citizens made it known they wanted public K-12 education for everybody. Were they looking ahead, to a time when a high school education would become necessary for any job? We don’t know what drove them to make this decision, to tax themselves for the purpose of education, but in hindsight, it was a good decision.

Fast forward to December 2019. Our best-managed state, as Governor Herbert likes to remind us, is looking at ways to increase revenue, without upsetting big business, the wealthy, real estate kings and, most importantly, campaign donors. Now the legislature has public school funding in its target-finding laser sights. There is a very serious proposal from the Legislature’s Task Force on Tax Reform that would “amend” Article XIII, Section 5 (5) and allow income tax receipts to be re-directed to the general fund, thereby reducing the amount of money available to public education.

For many years, Utah has been a leader in the race to the bottom of per-pupil spending. The good news, Utah has found a race it can win, consistently. The bad news, Utah students suffer. And, it could be argued, the state will suffer long-term, when the residents cannot compete for good paying jobs due to lack of educational development. Or perhaps those companies won’t move to Utah because we will have a functionally illiterate workforce.

Let’s be perfectly clear on how well Utah has run this race. Our per-pupil spending is the lowest in the nation. Utah spends $6,953 per pupil; the national average is $11,762 per pupil. That’s right, our best managed state is at the bottom of the class, we rank as number 51 out of 51. Isn’t that something to be proud of? WE’RE NUMBER (5)1!

It can’t be said that the Utah Legislature hasn’t tried before to cut education costs, those high-minded people tried for an educational voucher system, so you could send Sally and Johnny to a school that teaches what you want your children to hear, as opposed to fact-based “liberal” education. The voters said no thank you and defeated that program. Now Utah is hot and heavy into the charter school fiasco, whereby “schools” that lack in credentials, with teachers that don’t have the proper education, can have a go at spending state tax dollars-and then fail to be acceptable schools. Look at Treeside Charter School in Provo, or American International School of Utah. Both have failed, and the financial loss will, in the end, cost Utah more millions. The students are the ones that really lose in this ill-planned assault on education, however. Perhaps our legislature could learn more from Mr. Jefferson:

Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation. --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

Now, to be fair, the task force has included some other measures that are also repugnant, in my opinion. They want to increase the sales tax on food (after all, everybody needs food), and they want to increase the per-child deduction on the fore-mentioned income tax. A double whammy hit on the less fortunate, to be sure. Low-income residents will see the grocery bill rise (due to the sales tax increase), and then they have to wait for a “credit” on their income tax to offset the higher weekly food bill. Those families with children will pay less income tax-that’s right, those that have more children in school will pay less to educate them.

So, what can be done? If this sloppy, poorly-thought-out plan makes it through a special session of the legislature (very likely), and a ballot measure comes forward to amend the state constitution to allow the diversion of income tax money away from schools, vote against it! And perhaps more importantly, let your legislative representatives know how you feel about education!

Our children’s education, and the future of our state’s economy, are worth more to me than moving the prison, or funding extractive industries.

Well, those are my thoughts on this chapter of education funding in Utah. Thanks for reading; your thoughts and comments are, as always, welcome.

R.M. “Bob” Hartman

It’s Father’s Day

June 16, 2019; a day that surprisingly, has only been a “holiday” since President Richard M. Nixon signed this day into law in 1972. Wait, it’s been a holiday since Lyndon Baines Johnson declared it a holiday in 1966! Well, no, back further. . . in 1913, a bill was introduced in Congress to recognize Father’s Day but failed to pass to due fears it would become commercialized! (What, congress feared commercialization of a holiday! How things have changed.)

But I digress from the basis of this post. I’m doing my weekend chores, like mowing the lawn, when I hear a loud “GRANDPA!” I turn, and our second grandchild, Sarah, comes around to give me a big hug, and saying, I had a few minutes and wanted to see you. How wonderful that was, how surprising for me, how fulfilling for a grandfather, for a father. When your grandchildren, and your children, remember you, and take the time to say HI! How good it feels.

WOW-her sister (our oldest grandchild) had been here a few hours before, how much better can it get? Much better, actually; our son had posted his thoughts about me on social media a day or two ago, for everyone to see. He succeeded in bringing this father to tears.

I didn’t have the luxury of a father for most of my life, as some of you know. So, I have very limited expectations of expressions for this day, regardless of my efforts.  And, frankly, I’ve not always been the “Ward Cleaver” type of father.

It’s been said, you never know the effect you will have on a child. My son expressed recently on his social media that I was a good example for his son.

 I can only hope I live up to his expectations.

To my fellow fathers, A happy Father’s Day to you, let’s celebrate!   

As always, your comments are welcome!

And we have a Winner!

It’s great, folks, really great! The House Republicans have passed, and sent to the Senate, the American Health Care Act. This bill will reduce health-care related costs and taxes by $5640 annually for those Americans who make $200,000 or more each year. Companies that employ 50 or more full time workers will no longer be forced to offer health insurance to the employees. This will definitely help make America great again.

Now, if you have winners this big, you naturally are going to have some losers. But who are they? The losers are you and I, the American people. Here are a few facts for your consideration.

If you make $10,000 annually, your health costs will rise by $1400 yearly. Those fine Americans that make $50,000-$72,000 will only see health costs increase by $60 annually, unless you get pregnant or have a pre-existing condition.

We are going to get rid of some of those pesky regulations that Obama put in the ACA. We are going to start by allowing insurance companies to charge you more, or deny you coverage entirely if you have any pre-existing conditions, such as being a victim of rape or domestic violence, pregnancy, cancer, or heart conditions, to name a few.

Insurance companies are corporations, and corporations are people, too. They don’t want to be forced to cover pregnancy, mental health care, or cancer screenings as essential services. The American NoHealth Care Act gives them the choice of covering them or not. I’m no expert, but I really don’t expect the insurance companies to willingly cover them any more as essential services.

If your insurance lapses for 63 days or more, say when you are unemployed, insurance companies can charge you higher premiums for pre-existing conditions than before.

Medicaid, including CHIP, is a health program that provides basic services for low income Americans. This program will be capped under the American NoHealth Care Act, which will force people close to the poverty line out of the program. They will then have the option of paying more than they can afford for health insurance, or just get sick and go to the emergency room. Now, that is what is known as freedom of choice? NOT!

These are just a few of the facts relating to the American NoHealth Care Act. Here’s a couple more, and they might hit home with you. This bill was passed without any Democratic votes, and in fact 20 Republicans voted against the bill. Are you represented in the House by a Republican? (Sadly, I am, and I am not happy about her vote. I voted for her opponent in the election.)

Did you vote for that Republican?

Think about it.

As always, thanks for reading. Please feel free to post comments or thoughts.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman 

Through the Eyes of a Child

As adults, we rise up and power through our days, focusing on the concerns and employments that affect our own existence, and the affairs of the world. We forget, sometimes, how the simple things can provide immense pleasure to our lives. . .

This morning, as I was at my desk ruminating on world and local events (courtesy of the internet and the local paper), a small sound came to my ears. My youngest granddaughter slowly and carefully opened the door of my office, peered around it, and very quietly said “Good morning, Grandpa.”

She looked out the window. “The sun woked up. And I woked up. Does the sun eat breakfast, Grandpa?” I smiled, and said, “I don’t know, but I bet you would like some breakfast.” So we went to the kitchen, and I prepared her a bowl of cereal (colored circles, please, Grandpa, and orange juice). I fixed a cup of coffee, and listened to her chatter on about how dogs have four feet, but they are called paws, and people don’t have paws, people have only two feet, but we have hands; the reflection of her bowl of cereal on her glass of juice, and so forth, as she ate her cereal and drank her juice. I reflected on how much she enjoys life, enjoys taking each minute of life and finding wonder in it. How much she revels in sharing her thoughts, openly, without worrying if she is talking too much or making a fool of herself.

On our kitchen wall, we have an impressionist painting of a street scene that my wife and I purchased some time back; it reminds us of Seville, and a wonderful trip we had taken to that ancient Andalusian city. She looked up at it, as if seeing it for the first time, and asked me about it. How do you explain the emotions of a trip down memory lane to a four year old? I did my best, and then she looked at our dog, and commented about how he had so much hair, and never had to wear clothes. On to the next subject!

Now she is joined by her older sister, and I am treated to a continuous litany of (to me) unconnected thoughts running rampant through their minds.
How today was a no school day. They like to play outside, but it was raining, so they would stay inside. But they can’t go outside unless an adult is with them. Jonathan can’t walk yet, ‘cause he is a baby. And on and on.
I lost track of the events I was studying so hard a half hour ago, and become entranced by their view of the world and life in it.

I forgot, for that brief moment in time, about the tragic plane crash, the terrorist attack on a college in Kenya, the letters and bills on my desk that demand attention. My arthritis drifted to the back of my mind, as I watched them toss their hair around, smile and giggle at each other.

“With the eyes of a child
You must come out and see
That your world’s spinning round
And through life you will be
A small part of a hope of a love that exists
In the eyes of a child you will see.”
(John Lodge, 1969. The Moody Blues: To Our Children’s Children’s Children)

Yes, it is cloudy and misty today in the Salt Lake valley. The yard needs the moisture. . . etc., etc. Today, however, my world is full of springtime, sunshine and life!

Thank you, Esther and Martha, for bringing my feet back to the ground, and lifting my mind to the sky.

RM Hartman

Your thoughts and comments are, as always, welcome.

The state of Education in Utah

Brad Smith, the Utah State Superintendent of Public Education, is quoted as saying, during the closing sessions of the 2015 Utah legislative session, "It reminded me of when my kid was 3 years old and they started crying on Christmas morning because they didn't get one more thing," (SL Tribune, March 24, 2015). He has since retracted this statement in “An open letter to all Utah educators”, posted not in a public forum, but instead on the Utah Public Education website. (http://utahpubliceducation.org/2015/03/23/an-open-letter-to-all-utah-educators/#.VRFN8_nF_ng)
I am calling him out on both his statement at the legislature and his “apology.” Utah is dead last in the United States for per-pupil education. We have the largest class sizes in the Union, and a teacher in our state can qualify for welfare based upon wages paid. Both of these FACTS should shame the Utah State Superintendent of Public Education into advocating for more money for public education. . . and to do away with charter schools.

Like most parents in Utah, I have raised children who benefited from public education. I have listened to well-trained, qualified teachers as they gave advice to us regarding ways to help our children to gain as much knowledge as possible from their education; and also how to provide opportunities outside of school to assist in their education. Teachers work hard; they are unfortunately paid very poorly in Utah, and yet they continue to give it their all. To have the State superintendent accuse them of behaving poorly is a slap in their faces.

The rally to which you were referring, sir, consisted of not only teachers, but included parents concerned about their children’s education, and the level of funding given to the public schools. We, as a State, spent time this legislative session commemorating a device dedicated to killing, and spent money to have non-existing wolf-packs delisted from the endangered species act. We have, as a State, funneled money into charter schools that can pick and choose the students they want, to the detriment of public education.

I am sure you are familiar with Thomas Jefferson, the founder (and first major financial supporter) of the University of Virginia. Here is one of his comments regarding education:
“The tax that will be paid for the purpose of education is not more that the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”

You, sir, should have been begging, cajoling, and lobbying on behalf of Utah public schools and educators. You should have been crying foul on every attempt to limit or control money spent on public education. You should have been supporting the public schools, and the educators.

Instead, you chose to compare those advocating for education to the bleating of 3-year old offspring of goats.
My children, grandchildren, indeed all the children in Utah, deserve better from the State Superintendent of Education.

You, sir, owe an apology -not only to Utah public education teachers- but to all the parents, children, and children’s advocates in Utah. Perhaps you even owe them your resignation from office, as your very public comment indicates a distain for public education.

Your comments upon my thoughts are welcome.
RM “Bob” Hartman 3/24/15

Dispatch from Havre, MT.

Summer dawn comes slowly to north-central Montana, on the cusp of the Great Plains. Morning begins a full hour before sunrise, as the sun sends rays of light over the even eastern horizon, when the nighttime demons head to shelter. Coyotes and owls sing their final tune, and night gives way to dawn.

Morning here smells of pancakes, bacon, eggs, and exhaust. The tractors, trains, and diesels start up; tractors to the fields, trains on the Hi-Line off to the east and west, and diesels head out onto Highway 2. The grains grown here will be turned into pancakes, hog and chicken feed; all of it has to be moved around the country to become something you will pay for in your supermarket checkout. Life today is the same as yesterday and tomorrow.

I am amazed, every time I visit here. The clerks in the stores take the time to talk with you, to make sure you found everything you wanted (and then some more); and no one seems to be rushed as they are in major metropolitan areas. Yesterday I was in a local bike shop, looking for an odd-sized spacer. The owner said he was sure he had something like that, and disappeared to return with a small box of odd parts. We looked through it, and yes, found a good part; when I went to pay him, he said, “no, just glad to help you out.” Try that at your local Home Depot. No, the grocery stores don’t carry Quinoa or couscous but I did find a small pasta that could substitute in my recipe.

Is it perfect? No, the winters are bitter cold (-40 and a wind chill factor on top of that), and it is uncomfortably (for me) humid in the summer. But for some, it is a decent trade-off. We took our granddaughter to test for kindergarten, and I found out the class sizes range from 12 to 16. Wow. Double Wow; in the Salt Lake City area, we are dealing with 32-38 students per class. I should mention the bus stop (and the mailbox) is 1.5 miles from her house! Well, it is good exercise.

My son and his family live 5 miles (as the crow flies) from the post office, on a dirt road that becomes very greasy when it rains. Right now (10 PM), I can hear frogs, coyotes and an owl. Cottontail rabbits amused his two dogs this afternoon; the rabbits seem to know the dogs can only go so far on their tethers.

If you have the opportunity to visit Havre, MT., (http://www.havremt.com) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havre,_Montana) I suggest Murphy’s Bar and Grill; Gary and Leo’s IGA (grocery); Triple Dog Brewing Company (https://www.facebook.com/brewon2) and Nalivkas Pizza (http://www.nalivkas.com/). Note: these are unpaid advertisements!

Utah's Legislature is Hurting our Children

Ah, children! The joy of every parent’s life; the happiness they bring to grandparents. We all want our children to grow up safe, healthy, and loved. To accomplish this, we teach them from a very early age to eat well, dress warmly, and wear their seat belts. Our physicians inoculate and vaccinate them, and attend to their various illnesses. As they progress through school, our educators add to the wealth of information that can assist our children to lead happy, productive, and healthy lives.

Unfortunately, there is also pressure to ignore what the parents, doctors, and teachers advise. Peer pressure can lead children into gangs, drugs, alcohol, and sex. As parents, we don’t want this to happen, and we try to educate our children to avoid risky behavior. We rely on the schools to re-enforce the principals we stress repeatedly to our youth.
Why then, would the Canyons School District in Utah physically remove pages 398-417 from the brand new health textbooks for its five high schools? (Rolly, Tribune)
Brand new textbooks, costing $76.19 each, had pages cut out of them by the school administration. Why?

Could it be because our legislature is afraid to have our children taught about sex? They think that if we teach children about sex, they will run out and start copulating like rabbits. Perhaps it is time to send our legislators back to school, to teach them some facts, some reality. Here’s what they need to learn: Utah teenagers and young adults are having sex now, without enough knowledge of how to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. And that, my dear readers, is not good.

Utah had a teenage pregnancy rate in 2011 of 23.1 per 1,000 women. The national average that same year was 31.3 per 1000, so we are doing better than some states, but not as well as others. However, the pregnancy rate is only part of the problem. What life-changes occur when teenage girls become pregnant? Here are some scary national statistics: 79% of teenagers who become pregnant are unmarried; 34 % of sexually active teenagers have at least one pregnancy before age 20, and 80% of teen mothers end up on welfare, for at least some period.

Utah has some scary statistics of its own to worry about, and they are not just about becoming pregnant. There are four major sexually transmitted diseases, and Utah has its share of them. The data here is all from 2011, and all supplied by the CDC. (The links are at the end of this article.) When I use the term population, I am referring to the 15-24 age groups, not the entire population.
Chlamydia, the so-called silent epidemic, is the most common STD in Utah; it was diagnosed in 4740 teenagers in 2011. That is a rate of 1059 for every 100,000 teenagers/young adults. The second most prevalent STD in Utah is gonorrhea, in 2011 there were 119 new cases confirmed in the 15-24 age grouping. The rate for gonorrhea was 26.6 per 100,000 of our teenage/young adult population. Next on the list is syphilis, which was diagnosed in two cases in 2011, for the same population, this puts it at .4 for every 100,000 young adults. Are you concerned about our children’s health yet?

You should be very concerned, in fact we all should be. Here is a statistic that should really frighten you. In 2011, 81 new cases of HIV infection were reported in our target group; and, even more frightening, 2091 of our 13-24 teenagers/young adults were living with the HIV infection.
Let’s do some simple math: in 2011, 5,377 unmarried teenagers/young adults gave birth (23 were under 15!); 4,740 teenagers/young adults were diagnosed with Chlamydia; 119 with gonorrhea, 2 with syphilis, and 2172 had the HIV infection.
Twelve thousand, four hundred and ten of our teenagers/young adults had their lives dramatically changed. 12,410 lives negatively affected in 2011 alone. So why do I want the legislature to go back to school?

The laws in Utah, created by our head in the sand legislature, do not allow discussion, by the teacher or in the textbook, about contraception, STD’s, sexual arousal, masturbation or alternative life-styles. Our legislature believes that teaching about sex in school may violate a parent’s right to control what information (about sex) their children receive. Remember, we are talking about high school students here, students that regularly use the internet, with wireless devices that connect them to the internet 24/7/365, provided by the parents. Well, mom, dad, and legislature, here is a news flash for you. Johnny and Sally are having sex, whether you like it or not. You don’t want to think Utah’s children are in any way sexually active, but that is obviously incorrect. You want to believe that if we raise our children in good homes, and don’t tell them about sex, they won’t get curious, they won’t experiment. Sadly, that is not reality, that is not what the data shows. That is the reason, however, why Canyons School District cut the pages out of 315 textbooks. (Canyons had originally ordered textbooks for 3000 students, so they have now gone back to the publisher to have the textbooks re-created without the offending sections.) It is ridiculous, it is wrong, and it is unfair to our children. It also means that there will not be new health books for the high school students until the next school year.

This legislative session in Utah, the legislators will consider SB31, which will raise the legal age to buy tobacco products in Utah from 19 to 21. The senator proposing this law says that this will prevent 4,740 teenagers/young adults from smoking. That is a good, albeit questionable motive. (If you are old enough to die for your country, I think you are mature enough to decide if you want to smoke.) If the good senator is concerned about the health of our young adults, should not the health of 12,410 teenagers/young adults be a greater concern than that of 4,740?

There are ways to reduce teen pregnancy and STD transmission; they include education at home and at school, availability of effective birth control, and good parenting/mentoring. The CDC has a program to reduce teen the number of pregnancies, here is one of the components that bears strongly on this discussion:
“Providing teens with evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs, including youth development and curriculum-based programs that reduce teen pregnancy and associated risk factors.”
Twelve thousand, four hundred and ten of our teenagers/young adults had their health, and their lives, put at risk due to our state-sponsored policy of “Don’t Tell.” It’s time to change that policy, and educate our children.

Thanks for reading my thoughts. Please feel free to add your comments, just click on the pencil to open the comment box!

Paul Rolly’s Tribune article is here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57506243-90/district-books-sexual-policy.html.csp

Utah birth rates are here: http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/2011bx_UpdatedFinal_03292013.pdf

CDC Statistics are here: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/by-age/15-24-all-STDs/state/2011/UT11.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/HSSR_MSA_2013-PDF04.pdf

CDC program to reduce teen pregnancy: http://www.cdc.gov/TeenPregnancy/PreventTeenPreg.htm

The School Lunch Debacle, Chapter II

As I posted here on February 1, the Salt Lake School District has as policy of taking lunches from elementary school students who had negative or zero balances in their lunch accounts, and throwing the lunches into the trash, then offer the child an apple and a carton of milk. Today, responding to national and international pressure, the district has issued a new policy, effective immediately, which corrects the previous policy. The new policy states that the schools will serve full lunches to students, regardless of the account balance. Policies and procedures are being implemented that will improve the communication between the lunchroom staff, the administration and the parents. Other school districts in Utah are also implementing similar policies. (Salt Lake Tribune, 2/7/14)

This is a great step forward, and I applaud the district for establishing this new policy. The bigger question, however, is why did it take national and even international attention to coerce this district into applying common sense to the issue? The elementary school children do not control the purse strings of the parents. (The new policy states that the school administrators discuss the issue with the parents, and leave the students out of the communication.) Have our school districts become so money-centric that the ideal of an educated student body has taken a back seat to money? Yes, I know that school lunch is not directly coupled to a successful education. The larger body of evidence, however, demonstrates that elementary school students who are not hungry tend to pay more attention in class, and thereby have a better opportunity to learn while they are in school. Learning-education- is what they are in school to do.

Utah loves the Founding Fathers of our country. Let us then read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about education:
“The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance”-Thomas Jefferson.

Our nation was not conceived, nor will it flourish, without an educated population. It is imperative that we all consider all children as our future, and that we attend to their education. If that means, as demonstrated, that we provide an opportunity for the children to eat a nutritious meal while they are in school, so be it. That school lunch may be the only decent meal that student receives in that day.

The credit for this change in district policy is due in no small part to an un-aligned group of parents who were angry about the policy, and I congratulate them for speaking out. It is my considered opinion, however, that it is the advent of social media, of user groups, of Facebook and Twitter, and of the internet that brought this issue to critical mass. Without the use of social media, of the internet, perhaps this would have been nothing but a discardable issue for the school board.

I accept that the parents have a responsibility to know what the account balance is. I have been a parent to three school age children, and I acknowledge that the rush of events in my life, and in my spouse’s life, prevented us from reviewing the daily balances of our children’s school lunch account. However, we paid attention to the notices from the school when the balances were close to zero, or negative, and responded accordingly. The Salt Lake School District has admitted that the new system failed to properly notify the parents.

The Salt Lake School District has failed, noticeably, to apologize to the students for the embarrassment the students experienced at having their lunches taken from them in front of their peers.

Sally in the 4th grade does not understand all the politics and uproar behind the district’s action that day in the lunchroom. All she knows is, her lunch was taken from her and thrown in the trash, and she was embarrassed in front of her classmates. The ball, so to speak, is now in the hands of the Salt Lake School District. It is now their responsibility, and their duty, which they will evade, to speak to each of the 40 students (and their parents) affected, to admit that they made serious mistakes, and to let the children know this is the effect of adult (mistaken) hubris on their part.

Congratulations to the Salt Lake School District for taking late but corrective action. The punitive actions the district took against the students have been exposed to public scrutiny, worldwide. Now, the district management needs to apologize, in front of media cameras, to the students. The lunchroom supervisor who cried when ordered to take lunches from students deserves a public accommodation, not paid leave while the district administrators cover their respective backsides.

Utah, a state that “promotes family values.” A state that declares positive concern about children. A state, however, that has demonstrated that money is more important than children. The people in charge of the Salt Lake School District have responded to the legislature, a legislature that decries any potential waste in public schools. A legislature that prefers charter schools over public schools.

It is time, Utah voters, to wake up. It is time to vote for legislators that will defend your children’s right to public education. It is time to challenge the status quo. It is time to say, I want my children to do as well, or better, than I did. That is the American dream, that is the future of America.

I know some of you will have divergent opinions on this subject. I challenge you to present them here, this is a forum for discussion. Click on the "comment" below, post your thoughts, let’s talk.

I challenge you. Will you respond?

Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57512768-78/district-parents-balances-negative.html.csp doiwnloaded 2 7 14

Amazed, But Not Amused

Wow, where do I begin? The State of Utah filed its brief, outlining the State’s position on denying same-sex marriage rights in Utah, on Monday, February 3rd at 11:30 PM. (A scant 30 minutes before deadline.) I’ve spent a good part of yesterday and today reading the brief, looking up references, making notes; and I must admit my amazement. I’ve listed the major points, as I see them, here; and I have added my own comments. If you want to download the brief, it is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/204554071/State-of-Utah-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-brief#download, you do have to create a sign in for Scribd.com, but it is free. All page references made refer to the brief as submitted to the court.

What happens if Utah allows same-sex marriage, on an equal footing with opposite-sex marriage?
“Same sex marriage creates. . .(2) a risk of increased fatherlessness (and motherlessness), with all the emotional, social, and economic damage that has been shown to create.
(3) A risk of reduced birthrates, with the demographic and economic crises that could bring.” (Pages 2-3)
These are certainly interesting viewpoints. I would like to see the peer-reviewed papers that create both of these positions; none were cited in the brief. I fail to see how the presence of two loving committed adults in a relationship creates an increased risk of fatherlessness or motherlessness for the children. How will allowing same-sex marriage reduce the birthrate? If same-sex marriage is allowed, will opposite-sex couples stop creating children? That is an extremely doubtful outcome! Should same-sex marriages be denied, it is highly unlikely that the individuals involved will decide to engage in opposite-sex marriage and procreate. It is much more likely the participants will simply choose to cohabitate, without the legal benefit and protection of marriage. The two terms, fatherlessness and motherlessness, really? Who created those terms?

The voters in the general election held in November of 2004 passed Utah Amendment 3. Article 1, Section 29 of the Utah State Constitution now reads:
“(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic unions, however denominated, shall be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”
I have covered this, in depth, in a previous article. Suffice it to say, due to all of the uproar and rhetoric on both sides, our Governor and some in the legislature are now openly talking about allowing “civil unions” for same-sex couples, which they would not consider before. It’s too late for that, Governor. The horse has left the barn, at a gallop. The point the Governor and his supporters are not accepting is that civil unions do not provide all of the benefits accorded to married couples, as per existing federal and state laws. Separate but equal has been tried before, it failed then and it will fail now. Additionally, providing now for civil unions would invalidate paragraph 2 of this section, and as that is a constitutional change, it would have to come before the voters.

Under a section titled “Summary of Argument”, the State argues, among other things, that:
“. . . maintaining the man-woman definition increases the likelihood that children will be raised by their biological mothers and fathers-or at least a mother and father in intact families.” (Page 26)
I cannot follow that argument; if a heterosexual couple is raising their children now, how will allowing same-sex marriage decrease the likelihood they will continue to do so? Is the State saying, if we allow same-sex marriage, fathers or mothers in existing marriages will run off to be with a same-sex partner? Personally, I do not think so. I do not think it will matter to the parents at all, I cannot see same-sex marriage destroying any existing marriages/relationships. Characteristically, Utah is again tilting at windmills.

“. . . maintaining the man-woman definition helps to insure adequate reproduction by parents willing and able to raise their children in stable homes. . .The state has a compelling interest in ensuring adequate reproduction. . . ” (Page 27)
It is a biological fact that procreation requires involvement of opposite sexes. However, I do not understand how allowing same-sex marriage will reduce adequate reproduction by opposite-sex parents. Furthermore, what is the “compelling interest” the State has in ensuring adequate reproduction? The decision to reproduce, or not, belongs to the prospective parents, not to the State. Is this a behind the back maneuver to outlaw birth control in Utah? Could the State be saying, you must reproduce or your marriage is not valid?

“And although sex between men and women naturally- and often accidentally-produces children, it does not necessarily produce stable families dedicated to protecting and nurturing those children” (Page 52)
Well, here is a statement I can understand and agree with. Producing children does not mean a stable relationship, not by a long shot. Given the current number of single parent households in Utah, either because of divorce, desertion, or lack of commitment on the part of either parent, I think this statement is a no-brainer. My real question is, what does this statement have to do with the issue at hand, that is, same-sex marriage?

“Because of its critical social functions, marriage is also one of our most important social institutions.” (Page 53)
“Marriage (n): the state of being united to another person as a usual contractually relationship according to law or custom” (Merriam-Webster) It is indeed one of our most important social institutions, and as such, how would the State benefit by not allowing individuals to marry the person they wish to contract with? When two people decide to marry, to form that contract, they are formalizing their joint desire to enter into a long- term commitment to each other, for better or for worse, as the saying goes.

“. . . the law often supports social institutions, in order to give them formal recognition, bring legal and administrative arrangements into line with them, facilitate their use by members of the community who wish to do so, and encourage the transmission of belief in their value to future generations.” (Pages 55-56)
Let us then allow formal recognition of same sex marriages. Let those who wish to marry, to make a contract with another person, do so without segregation by race, creed, national origin, language, or sexual orientation. Provide all marriages the same legal and administrative arrangements currently enjoyed by opposite sex marriages. As I understand it, that is at the crux of the argument for same-sex marriage.

Utah has listed seven arguments against “redefining” marriage as the union of two people (as opposed to the current wording, one man and one woman.) The State refers to this as genderless marriage. Here are Utah’s seven arguments:

“First, redefining marriage in genderless terms would break the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation. . . the redefinition ordered by the district court would tend to encourage more parents to raise their existing biological children without the other biological parent.” (Pages 72-73)
This argument has some serious flaws. What is the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation? Many couples enter into marriage knowingly without the ability or desire to procreate. Further, the State offers no peer-reviewed documentation or studies that conclude allowing same sex marriage would encourage more parents to raise children without the other biological parent involved. Is the State trying to blame a shadow-figure for the incidence of single-parent households? That bucket doesn’t hold water, we already have children being raised in single-parent households and we currently do not have genderless marriage.

“Second . . . the loss of the State’s clear message in favor of biological mother-father parenting within marriage would likely result in a higher percentage of couples conceiving children without the stability that marriage would otherwise bring.” (Page 73)
I agree that the ideal situation for raising children is a two-parent, financially secure, loving household. The State does not explain how allowing same-sex marriage will cause that “clear message” to be lost. Nor does, or can, the State demonstrate how same-sex marriage will encourage couples to conceive children without marriage. Where did they come up with this argument?

“Third. . . would undermine the existing social norm that often leads parents in acceptable but not ideal marriages to make self-sacrifices and remain married to the parents of their children.” (Page 73)
Ok, sadly, I have heard this one before. The State is encouraging parents to stay married for the sake of the children. It wants parents to remain in a perhaps loveless or tumultuous relationship for the sake of a theoretically existing social norm. To keep up the (false) appearance of Utah as a family-centered state, the State expects and desires parents to remain in a relationship that may be damaging to their mental or physical well-being. This is not just a bucket-load of cattle by-product; instead, it is a whole trainload! All of which having been said, how does this social norm bear on the subject at hand, which is the recognition of same-sex marriage? I cannot make that connection, no matter how hard I try.

“Fourth . . . would also undermine the current social norm (weakened though it may be) that those who wish to have children-or engage in conduct that could lead to children-should get married. “ (Page 75)
Let us remember what this lawsuit is about, the validity of same-sex marriage. These same sex couples want to get married. They want to raise children, if any are involved, in a two-parent, loving household. If anything, they want to strengthen the social norm of being married when raising children. I am beginning to wonder about the validity, and appropriateness, of the State’s arguments.

“Fifth, and most obviously, a genderless definition of marriage would likely increase the number of children being raised by same-sex parents. That could happen because the couple decides to raise together an existing child of one of the partners. Or it could be the result of the conception of a new child through surrogacy or sperm donation.” (Page 76)
For this to be a valid argument against same-sex marriage, the State needs to demonstrate (which they haven’t) how this arrangement would be detrimental to the State, or to the children involved. Previously, the State has argued that is it important for children to be raised in a two-parent household; a two-parent household provides a better environment for the children. Why, then, does the State not want to support marriage? This sounds like circular reasoning, and not very good reasoning at that.

“Sixth. . . it would likely lead to other innovations. . . for starters, if homosexual marriage is OK, why not group marriage?” (Page 77)
Ah, the good old slippery slope again. Let’s all go out to the slide in the playground. Polygamous marriage is not legal under current Federal law, although that law is currently being challenged in federal courts. Polygamy, however, is not the question here. Is the State creating a diversion because they don’t feel they have a strong enough argument in this case? If so, Utah should remember that it had to renounce and outlaw polygamy in order to gain admission into the Union.

“Seventh. . . a court-ordered redefinition of marriage could well lead to its wholesale “privatization”-for example by enactment of a civil union regime for all couples, with religious and other organizations being free to offer the title of “marriage” as they see fit.” (Page78)
The individual(s) responsible for this paragraph needs to go back to law school! In order to be legally married, the couple-opposite-sex or same-sex- must first obtain a marriage license from the state. This license creates a legal, binding contract between the two people; if they wish a religious component to the marriage, they can be wed in a ceremony by a faith that allows that marriage. Conversely, they can be wed by the county clerk, or by a justice of the peace, even Elvis, if they wish to go to Las Vegas. Is the State, not too subtly, suggesting that marriage require a religious component? Given this is Utah we are talking about, that is not a big stretch of the imagination.

The State continues to focus on the fertility rates, arguing that:
“By implicating endorsing the adult-centric model of marriage, a genderless redefinition would send a powerful message that it is entirely appropriate-even expected-for adults to forgo or severely limit the number of their children based upon concerns for their own convenience. “ (Page 88)
This argument shows arrogance, sheer unadulterated arrogance on the part of the State. It is altogether appropriate for adults to consider their own circumstances in the decision to have children, and how many children to have. Career, financial, health, and lifestyle choices can and should be an important part in the educated decision to have, or not have children, and in the decision of how many children to have. It is my observation, having lived in this state for almost 40 years, that many people feel it is their (religious) duty to have children quickly, and frequently, regardless of their ability to support the children, or their personal desire or physical/mental condition to have children. This “duty” can, and in some cases does, cause severe social/economic stress on the parents, and on society as a whole. Our overcrowded, under-funded educational system comes to mind, but that is a discussion for another day.

“Preserving Utah’s marriage definition furthers the State’s vital interest in accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife.” (Page 90)
I believe we have finally arrived at the core of the State’s position. The very predominant religion in the state of Utah is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the Church does not accept or condone same-sex relationships or marriages. Its position is that homosexuality is a sin, and a choice; a choice that can be “corrected” by faith, prayer, fasting, and marriage to a person of the opposite sex, with procreation following. The Church maintains this position regardless of the mounting scientific evidence that homosexuality is a biological factor that is decided while the child is in utero; that it is not the “fault” of the mother or the father, and that it is not genetically related.
No logical, thinking individual could or should deny the Church its right to its beliefs. Nor will that same individual deny the members of the Church their right to practice their religion, insofar as that practice does not conflict with the rights of those who do not believe the same.
In reference to the quote above, the State does have a vital interest in promoting religious freedom and reducing civil strife. That religious freedom, however, is a double-edged sword. The sword does protect the right of a church, and its members, to believe and practice as they wish. It also protects others in the same fashion; that is, they have the right to believe and practice, according to their own personal dictates and conscience.

The narrow issue in this matter before the court is civil rights, or equality. There are no less than 15 Supreme Court decisions that have delineated marriage as a civil right, beginning in 1888; the latest decision was US vs. Windsor. (The following quote is from Lawrence vs. Texas., 2003)
“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”(Lawrence vs. Texas)
The majority of Utah’s citizens are members of the LDS church, and support and participate in the Church to varying degrees. That is fine, but majorities do not decide or control civil rights. The laws and courts of our nation are there to protect the civil rights of minorities as well as majorities. In this particular matter, it is the civil right of homosexual persons to be married, the same as heterosexual persons, and to enjoy the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage, that is under discussion. This case is not a discussion of procreation, though the State would like to make it that. Nor is it a discussion of morals, because morals are as individual as you and I are. It is a matter of the rights of individuals to marry as they choose, and to enjoy the protection and benefit of marriage.

After reading and studying this brief, I have several opinions. (Surprise!)
First, the State has failed to show why or how same-sex marriage will harm the State, its citizens, or the children. In constructing this document, the State refers to the incidence of single-parent families, and attempts but miserably fails to connect same-sex marriage to single-parent households.
Second, the State has raised the specter of same-sex marriage causing a decrease in the number of children born in Utah, without demonstrating causation. This thinking flies into the wall of reason, and falls hard to the ground. I hope that it will stay there. It certainly does not deserve reincarnation.
Third, the State has claimed, without justification, that same-sex marriage will increase the number of children born of causal, non-committed sexual congress. Excuse me, how did the “crack legal team” hired by the Attorney General come up with this idea? Marriage will lead to an increase in childbearing casual sex? Anyone following that road deserves to drive off the cliff.
Fourth, and in my opinion most dangerously, the State has tried, however subtly, to inject majority religious opinion into secular law. I know this is Utah, but come on; we are in the 21st century, not the dark ages. Religion –any religion-does not belong in secular law!

Finally, patient reader (I know this has been a long document, even for me), I believe the State has wasted good money on this brief, and indeed is wasting money on this entire case. That is money that should go to education, for education is the best defense of civil rights, and of liberty. I also believe that while this case is about Utah law, the decisions reached will, long-term, effect the entire United States of America.

I hope you have enjoyed this discussion, I know you have opinions that may agree or disagree with mine. However, that is the beauty of America, we are all entitled to our opinions, and I would like to hear yours. Please leave your comments below.
Thanks for reading, as always!

One final housekeeping item: In this article, when I use the term marriage, I am referring to the arrangement between two consenting adults, of legal age to enter marriage.

Sources:
For Utah’s brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/204554071/State-of-Utah-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-brief#download

For Lawrence vs. Texas: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79449919/Lawrence-vs-Texas