Perspectives

I have a lot on my mind right now, some pleasant, some not so pleasant. To say I'm stressed is an understatement, though I am not overwhelmed just yet. I seem to be managing the new calling and grad school OK, though I definitely need to do a better job of prioritizing my time and getting the things done that actually need to be done first before I do the extras (like blogging!).

Still no word on the status of the house other than the status quo. As far as I know the payment was made for June, but I'm not sure how much longer those payments will be made. Once they stop it is only a matter of time before the foreclosure sets in, though it is anyone's guess when the foreclosure will actually happen and when we will actually lose the house. Somehow this is going to work out; how I do not know. It is frustrating not knowing what's going to happen and kind of existing in limbo here. I'd feel better about things if school wasn't hanging over my head right now and looming ahead of me like a long tunnel with no end. I know, no sooner will I begin then it will be over, but right now the end seems so far off. That said, I'm amazed how fast these three weeks have gone by already. Having a four-day week helps though, a LOT. If I've learned anything from this experience (which is by no means over), it's knowing what to say and what not to say to people enduring or facing something like this. I've gotten a lot of "advice" over the past month-and-a-half from people that know about the situation and I can say this: sympathy and just offering to be there for support are the best routes. Advice of what to do "when [we] lose the house" or "everything will be OK" doesn't do much for helping me to feel good about what's going on or do anything to improve the situation. On top of that, it's all coming from people who currently enjoy stability and security in their income and residence. It's easy to tell someone to "not worry" about something when you don't have to worry about or have never had to worry about it yourself. It's also easy to give advice on what to do knowing that you would never have to follow that advice yourself and wouldn't want to either.

The next person that tells me to get a job is going to get an earful from me, seriously. Let me reiterate the situation concerning a job one more time: even if I did hold a job right now, it would only be part-time and would not allow financial independence, so I'd be living at home anyway. Since graduate school is a new experience for me, I figure I might as well focus my energies there. I'm not even doing the Kirtland show I've done the last three summers (opens this week...good luck guys!) so that I can focus on grad school and save money on gas. Once the fall semester starts in August, even a part-time job will be out of the question because of the demands of school. Few people seem to realize that the program I am doing is not a typical grad school program of 2-3 years. This is an intense one-year program which demands full attention. During both the fall and spring semesters, I will not only be going to classes, but I will also be student teaching at a school to be announced. So basically, it will be like I have a full-time job with no pay or benefits but all the accompanying stress. The issue here is NOT that I want to live here rent free so I can be dependent on my dad for as long as possible. The issue is that I have to be dependent for one more year so I can finish school and get a decent, steady job so I CAN become financially independent. I get the feeling, particularly from my own extended family, that people think I'm just milking the system here. And as I've said before, people telling me to get a job doesn't help me find a decent job any quicker, nor does it address the root of the problem, which is that I can't get a decent job yet, no matter how much I want it. And yes, I have held jobs and lived on my own before, so it's hardly a case of "not wanting to grow up".

I guess, in the end, my advice to someone like me is to hang in there and do what you feel is necessary and right. I certainly understand that most people giving me "advice" are doing so for my benefit; they want me to succeed and they're trying to help. In other words, the efforts are well-intended, but lack full perspective. Also, some things have been said without regard to how they can and are being received. I guess it's a good thing I'm so laid back, otherwise I could be really offended right now! It's common to hear the phrase that the world is "black and white" or "shades of gray" in terms of our choices and what is right and wrong. I am here to tell you both are wrong: the world is in living color. In physics, when light is absent we only see black and when light is low we only see "shades of gray"; no colors. The same applies spiritually. When we have the full spectrum of light, we can see all the colors clearly; we can see when something is wrong and when something is right and when "exceptions" are appropriate. In addition to that, there are many "hidden" colors we can't see like infared and ultraviolet light. When we have the proper equipment we can see those, so having the "proper equipment" is like having a full perspective as well. I've also figured that colored light can stand for a single perspective; like in physics, something that is red will look vastly different in blue light or yellow light than it will in white light or red right. Sometimes we let our own perspectives and prejudices alter views of reality and refuse to see other perspectives. Again, without the full spectrum (white light) we can't see all the colors or see them they way they should be seen.

New flags, old callings, and oh yeah, GRAD SCHOOL!

So I've made it through the first two weeks of graduate school and all I can say is "WHEW!" So far it's been about what I expected; not completely overwhelming, but not a breeze by any means. I've been blessed to have a good "cohort", a group of 11 other students who are all in the same classes as me for the summer, that is very easy and enjoyable to work with. What's also cool for me is that I have two other fellow Roosevelt grads, one of whom grew up right next door! My professors have been great as well not only in fostering worthwhile conversations, but really getting us to think critically about the material and what we think about it and why. Because I took my required education classes at BYU-Idaho while I was still a Music Education major, a lot of what we are covering in my two classes and a weekly seminar are things that aren't completely new. My first class is Psychological Foundations of Education and my second class is Principles of Secondary Teaching. The weekly seminar class gives us all training on how to properly write a scholarly article in the APA 5th edition style. At BYU-Idaho as an undergrad I took an Educational Psychology class and a Foundations of Education class among others, so going through these classes is just a higher level and much more in depth.

Not only did I start graduate school June 9, but I also got a new calling at church the day before. I am now the Executive Secretary to the bishopric in the ward. The bishopric consists of the Bishop and his two counselors who are the leaders of our ward (congregation), so I am their coordinator and scheduler for interviews and the like. And no, none of those positions, as is the case for anything at the church, are paid...all volunteer or "lay ministry." As cool as my new laptop is, I'm REALLY glad I have it now because it works perfectly to keep notes on for my classes AND for church-related things since I can use it in tablet mode as if it were a regular paper-and-pen notebook. It makes being organized much easier (with the help of Microsoft OneNote). I had thought I would be able to keep my calling in Primary as a teacher, but instead I am returning to my full-time role as pianist and am being released from being a teacher, so that has to be one of my shortest callings ever. I was just starting to get into it too...it lasted less than two months! I am excited to be going back to full-time pianist though. It was my favorite calling and I was still doing it part-time for senior primary. So, in getting a totally NEW calling, I get my old one back too! In addition to Executive Secretary (which also involves meetings before and after church on Sunday) and being Primary pianist, I am still the unofficial choir director, the ward singles representative (which really doesn't require much of anything), and a home teacher.

My next item is one for fun...I bought two new flags for my ever-growing collection. I don't know how many flags I actually have since I have them in different sizes, but I have a good amount now. I have always enjoyed studying flags and flying them too. My two newest ones are both firsts for me in that they are historical flags rather than current flags of a particular country or state. I bought a 3'x5' Bennington flag and the classic Betsy Ross flag, both of which have their roots in the American Revolution. The Bennington flag is the flag best known for having 13 seven-pointed stars around the number "76" in the blue field and the red and white stripes are the opposite of the typical Amercian flag (white stripes are on top and bottom). The other is the classic Betsy Ross flag, which looks just like a modern U.S. flag except that it has only 13 stars arranged in a circle. I bought them mainly for the upcoming 4th of July as they are the two of the most identified flags of the Revolution, the Betsy Ross flag in particular. I found it interesting that there is question whether or not Betsy Ross even sewed the first American flag and if the Bennington flag was even flown at the Battle of Bennington in 1777, but even if neither are true, they are still respectively known by those names. In any case, mostly to try and get the fold lines and wrinkles out, I have been flying my two recent additions on my two poles on the front porch. The new flagpoles I got last year make it easy to switch the flags and adjust for any size, so I am able to fly more of my flags, though I have only been flying the current American flag and the Ohio flag since I got those poles last summer.

Speaking of history, that's another one of my great interests, not only general history, but LDS (Mormon) history and local history as well. Last Wednesday I went to a cub scout activity for the ward at Plum Creek Park in Kent. Right near the park is an old aqueduct from the Pennsylvania & Ohio Canal, built in the late 1830's where the canal crossed Plum Creek just south of the Cuyahoga River. Today the structure is still there, though it no longer carries the canal, but two sets of railroad tracks. I had been wanting to find this aqueduct for some time to get a picture, but wasn't quite sure where it was, so I just followed the creek itself and found it. It wasn't hard to find, but it was VERY hard to get close enough to for a decent picture. I felt like a trailblazer from the frontier days trying to make my way through heavy overgrowth and brush just to get to a good viewing distance. I finally got there and realized the best picture would come from standing in the middle of the creek, so I did my best to stand on some rocks (the creek is only a few inches deep), but inevitably I still got my shoes and feet wet. Oh well...at least I got a good picture! There aren't much in the way of physical structures left of the old P&O canal, but two of the very best examples are right in Kent: that aqueduct and the old Kent dam downtown which is attached to an old canal lock. Since about 2004, the river is now channeled through the old lock to bypass the historic dam. I have special interest in the P&O canal because part of it ran through what is now my back yard. You can still clearly see the edges of the canal bed!

Obama Gets the Democratic Nod

It's no secret that I'm interested in politics, so I have been keeping up with the presidential race, the Democratic nomination process in particular. Not only has it been historic because a woman and a person of mixed race (no, sorry, Obama is NOT "black" or "African-American;" he has many other races as part of his family history too) being the two front-runners, but also how long it has gone on. I can't recall a recent primary election cycle that went on as long as this one did with no decision until now. Granted, I haven't exactly been paying attention as much or for that long, but still...it's been awhile since we have seen a primary race this close. Usually, by "Super Tuesday" or soon after, the race is over.

Well, now it appears it is, as Hillary Clinton is about to formally end her campaign even though she is really pushing to be the VP running mate for Obama. A lot of people think the two of them together would be "unstoppable," but I have a hard time seeing them running together. One of the reasons they have had so many disagreements is because they view things in totally different ways. In choosing a running mate, one usually picks someone who agrees with them more and shares common viewpoints, not someone who just engaged in a lengthy battle with them which involved heavy criticism of their ideas and plans. I also personally don't think if they ran together that they would win in any landslide either. Too many Americans regard both Obama and Clinton as too extreme, so McCain, who comes off as more of a moderate than an all-out conservative, will appeal more to them in my opinion. My experience has found that most Americans are fairly moderate in their political views. They want their basic needs met and things to function around them (roads, electricity, water, transportation), but they also want their own freedom with as little governmental interference as possible and of course, as little taxation as possible. Of course that's not everyone, but that's my observation of most people in my readings and travels.

As for my own vote, at this point I would vote for McCain, not because I think he is the best person for the job, but because I think he is better qualified than Obama. Neither have the experience I'd like to see (being in the Senate is not the same as being in the executive branch), but McCain has been in Washington longer so he has more experience working with Congress and a better idea of "how things work" in Washington. Still, I consider McCain the lesser of two evils. Obama's comments have not impressed me and all his talk about change is filled with the same old political rhetoric I have heard at every election about how everything is the other party's fault, yada yada yada. I've never been a big fan of McCain in the Senate, but I've been an even lesser fan of Obama since he started becoming well-known. The people one associates with tells a lot about how that person really is and all the controversy surrounding his religious associates tells me a lot. On top of that, I was never thrilled with his comments about diplomacy or foreign policy either. Yes, we should certainly try to talk and use diplomatic means whenever possible, but evetually you need to take a stand if they don't work. In addition, in order for diplomacy to work both sides and their constituents must value it. In other words, there are instances where diplomacy won't work, in particular with those we have identified as terrorists. Many, if not most, are not interested in discussions...they are interested in winning their war against the West. That war won't end until we either accept their way of life as our own (convert) or we are eliminated. And their war did not start recently...these people come from a culture that still considers the Crusades a recent event (the Crusades came in waves from 1095-1272). It would be similar to Americans still holding resentment to the British for the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812...And those were a LOT more recent than the last Crusade! Yes, I do realize that there have been other negative interactions between the West and the Middle East, but all have been tainted by that lingering mistrust from the Crusades. It's a cultural element that won't disappear overnight or easily. But anyway, that's a whole different blog!

There are many issues I have with both candidates, but in the end I and everyone else needs to remember that the President is not a dictator; he has limits in what he can and cannot do and what he can and cannot control. No matter what you think of President Bush and how he has extended executive powers, he is nowhere NEAR as powerful in this country as a true dictator would be. So, to sum it up, a president won't be able to sweep in and solve all our problems, no matter how charismatic he is, nor can he be the blame of all our problems or successes. We need to choose a candidate who we think will be able to address (and solve) as many of the issues facing our country as possible in ways we think are acceptable.

I love technology!

One of the great things about graduating is getting presents. In my case it meant getting some much-needed money to get some things I either wanted or needed in some little way. My two major purchases have come in the technology department, though I have gotten some other things as well. The first thing I got was an iPod Touch, something I have wanted for a long time. I've wanted an iPod for some time, out once the iPod Touch came out, I knew that was what I wanted. I'm a total sucker for technology and I have a real fondness for touchscreen. The iPod Touch hasn't let me down at all. Not only is it super cool but its also more than just a music player. I had intended to do the blog post from my iPod since it can surf the web, but I discovered its limits are on a site like this. While I can view and even edit parts of my blog and even check e-mail, I can't write a post because the little keyboard won't show up. All I was able to do on the iPod was put the title in. I was able to log in just fine and even edit the non-post parts of the blog just not the blog itself. I'd say the iPod Touch's Internet feature (it picks up a WI-FI signal) is much more for the convenience of being able to check websites that you just need do read rather than ones that are like this where you need to type a lot. I certainly wouldn't replace a computer with it.

Enter my other new acquisition... my new laptop, the HP Pavilion tx2000z. It is a tablet PC, so it is a lot more flexible than a typical laptop and is also somewhat smaller and more portable. On top of that, it has touchscreen technology which makes me like it even more! In honor of the topic, not only am I using the new laptop to make this post, I am using it in tablet mode by using the writing feature. Instead of typing, I am using an electronic pen and writing like I would on a piece of paper. The computer then "converts" my writing into the typed words. It's not a perfect system, but so far works pretty well. Sometimes it reads what I wrote as a different word but it's still pretty accurate and easy to correct. I could get used to this, though I still think typing is a bit easier. The computer was other features too like Bluetooth and a fingerprint reader as well as a built in webcam and mic. So far I really really like it and I look forward it using it in my classes once grad school starts this coming Monday!

Childhood thoughts

Every once and awhile my mom will ask me if I had a happy childhood, usually when we are reminiscing or looking at old pictures. Such was the case yesterday as we were looking at a collage of pictures of my sister Katie that my aunt Lynn made for Katie's high school graduation in 2002 (Lynn makes each of her nieces and nephews a collage when they graduate from high school, by the way!). My answer, as it has always been, is that yes, I did have a happy childhood, but I would never do it again. I have enjoyed being an adult, despite the many trials and challenges being such brings, much more than being a kid, mostly because I have much more control over my life: what I can do, what I can buy, and where I can go. That said, there are certainly aspects of my childhood that were not so happy, which is what I wanted to blog about. I'm not writing this to hang out my family's dirty laundry because let's be honest: pretty much everyone who reads this blog are people I know, so you either already know my history or I'd end up telling you this anyway.

As most know by now, my parents divorced when I was 4 years old (almost 5) back in 1987. It was the direct result of my dad's actions, not only for what he did morally, but also legally: he was the one who filed for divorce. For the most part we were shielded from the divorce and it did little to change our "status quo" as young kids. I was aware it was happening, but it did little to affect my young world. It was the results of the divorce, as opposed to the divorce itself, that affected, and continue to affect, my life in various ways from the present problems with the house to the relationships between my dad and the four of us (me, my brother, and 2 sisters) and between me and my Ridinger side of the family. As I told my mom yesterday, I wasn't happy then, nor am I happy now, about how the effects of the divorce were handled by my Ridinger side of the family, mostly because they never bothered to get our side of the situation and when we made our feelings known, they were almost always brushed aside or ignored. Unfortunately, this is occurring once again with the current situation surrounding the house that I blogged about at the beginning of the month.

I certainly understand that my dad is under a lot of stress not only with this problem, but also with imminent major surgery. We have known he has surgery coming up and that it was major, but his indications have been that it is a routine procedure; no need to overly worry. Well yesterday I was informed by my grandmother that he has expressed fears of "not making it" through the surgery, so I was treated with a short, awkward lecture of needing to fix the relationship with him so that I don't have any regrets should the unthinkable happen. I typically don't say much, even though there was a LOT I could've said to her right then; but I didn't think it would've been very effective. I also knew that if I got started on it, it would've opened the floodgates and I would've gotten them and myself very upset; so I just listened. I did tell her that Dad has "not said a word about this to us." She said that he said that he didn't think we "were communicating." That's funny because we were all at dinner on Tuesday night and we were talking just fine. In fact, I've been lamenting to my brother, sister, and close friends that Dad and the Ridingers have been acting like nothing is wrong and to be here you would never know that we have a pending foreclosure over our heads along with Dad's bankruptcy. In a way, it seems like nothing has changed, when it most certainly has. The only lack of communication was in the initial weeks after we were notified about this. I simply wasn't speaking to Dad unless I had to because I had nothing to say. He has yet to ask me what I even think about the whole thing, but yeah, it's my job to "fix" the relationship. Hmmmmm. My grandma made it sound like Dad has tried to communicate to us and has been rebuffed or shot down, when in fact, he has said virtually nothing nor has he made any notable attempt to do so. In fact, NONE of the Ridingers have asked me how I'm doing or how I'm feeling in regards to the whole situation. I'm losing my home and support right when I need it most but I'm supposed to be OK with that because I don't want Dad to feel bad. Well, as I've said many times, when this is all said and done, Dad will still have a home, Dad will still have an income, Dad will still have relative stability. Me? I stand to watch virtually all my things go into some storage facility and become an extended guest at one of my grandparents' houses and basically have my whole world turned upside down right when I need to focus my energy and ability on graduate school. But no, I'm supposed to be OK with that somehow.

See, it's always been like this. When we didn't get along with my former stepmom, it was our fault, not hers. We were supposed to be the "mature" ones as 6-12 year olds and open up and be patient while she continued to treat us as second-class citizens especially in comparison to her own spoiled son. Never mind that she made ZERO effort beyond the initial contact to try and get to know us and help us feel comfortable around her for the nine years they were married, but we were supposed to do such to her, at least according to my Dad and the Ridinger side's "standards." Let's also not forget that at the time, NONE of them had ever gone through anything CLOSE to a divorce and remarriage and having two separate families like we did. It is something I will never wish on anyone. And no, we didn't have a problem with my stepmom initially; it developed as we got to know her better and experienced how we were treated differently (read: WORSE) not only by her, but also my dad compared to her son. Case in point: in 1992 we took a combined "family" trip to Disney World, my first time ever there. While I had a pretty good time in my first "Disney experience," I will never forget how my siblings and I were each given $20 spending money for the 4 days we were in the parks. My step-brother? He was given $100 not to mention whatever he could get his mom to buy him. This just one early example of how we were always second. Another example, also at Disney World, was one night we were heading for the ferry at Epcot and my step-brother, who was not yet 6 at the time, was ripping leaves off the bushes along the way. I told him to stop doing that ("stop picking at the bushes."), but my stepmom said "Jon, don't tell [him] what to do," ignoring what he was actually doing (damaging park property) and instead focusing on me. She never did tell him to stop doing that. I also will never forget how we used to visit my dad at her house (it was never "their" house) when they were married. We would alternate who spent the weekend up there, so I would go up about every third or fourth week. I became friends with one of the neighbors across the street and during one of my visits; my dad and stepmom had agreed to help a friend of theirs move some things. Well, my friend invited me to stay at their house at the same time, so my friend and her mom apparently asked my stepmom, who they told me said to ask my dad. My dad said it was fine if I went with them instead of going to help this friend (whom I didn't even know) move. Well, I went over to my friend's house and wasn't over there long before I got a phone call from my dad telling me I was a "liar" and that Emma had said it wasn't OK for me to go over, yada yada yada. He wouldn't listen to me at all and made me come back and go over to this person's house. Her wishes were more important than mine. I think I stopped going up to visit on the weekends after that or shortly thereafter. I didn't set foot in that house again for almost seven years. It started before they were even married. I remember going with them, my sisters, and my step-brother to go shopping for a wedding dress and other wedding stuff (so I was 9). For some reason, I was very good and didn't run around and get into trouble and was even telling my sisters to not do stuff. Well, my dad liked that I was being so "mature" (now that I think of it was was being kinda bossy) and to reward me, he told me he was going to take me to Niagara Falls, which was something I had always wanted to do. We did go sometime I think later that year; along with my brother, step-brother and stepmom, of course. To be "fair" to my sisters, he decided to take them to Sea World (back when we had a Sea World in Aurora, Ohio!). Guess who also got to go? Yep...my step-brother and stepmom too. "Fair" meant equal in how he treated us in relation to each other, but not in relation to my step-brother. It was plainly clear we were second-best. Let's not forget how many events in our lives were missed because my dad "had to be" at something of my step-brother's like when my dad missed my sister Becky's 3rd grade open house at school because my step-brother had a soccer game. It's something that still sticks out to her and emphasizes how we were always second. Are we bitter about all this? One could say that, but in reality, it's in the past. I only bring these up to show how they have shaped the relationship between my dad and myself (and my siblings as well). If the same type of situation didn't keep recurring, I'd have no reason to be reminded of, and bring up again, these sad events in my past. But, once again they do keep coming up. When we were presented with the news that we would be losing the house sometime as early as this summer, there was never "but we'll make sure everyone is taken care of" or "we'll work though this no matter what" or anything of the sort. The only mention of me directly was "Jon can live at Ridingers," in other words "not my problem or concern." I got the impression that yes, Dad was sad to have to tell us, but moreso because of the embarrassment of having failed financially versus than the direct and negative impacts it would have on me, my sister Katie, and my mom. Whether that was his intention or not is irrelevant; that is what was portrayed to me. It was, as my brother put it, "like we had been encroaching on an overly nice stranger who could finally tell us to get lost." We'd always felt he couldn't wait for us to be out of the house and more distant from him and he finally had the reason to cut the cord. Let's also not forget that even though we were the ones most affected by these decisions, we were among the LAST to know about them.

I think it's also important to point out that my dad and his side of the family have always regarded how he has treated us "compared to other divorced dads." When you look at it in that light, yes, Dad performed remarkably well as he was a part of our lives growing up and paid more child support than he was legally required to (along with a variety of other things). Of course we recognize and are grateful for all he has done and does for us which he doesn't "legally" have to. But look at that closely: "compared to other divorced dads;" hardly a desirable group to be compared to. Many in that group have almost no contact, financially or emotionally, with their kids and still others have severely limited contact and involvement in the lives and upbringing of their children. I have often compared this to a sports team promoting their own "success" by stating they were "one of the best teams that didn't make the playoffs." On the other hand, we (my mom, my siblings, and I), compare Dad to dads who didn't get divorced and instead stayed as part of the family so that not only did all of their income (as opposed to a child-support payment) go into supporting the family, but they played a full-time role in the upbringing of the children, as opposed to a part-time role and did not have other interests- or people- competing with the family as the main importance. When you compare him to a dad like that, he falls well short. Financial support and part-time parental support is great, but it is hardly a substitute for a full-time devoted husband and father. The Ridinger's assessment of Dad also makes it sound like the divorce was some kind of mutual agreement between my parents, when in fact, as I pointed out earlier, it is COMPLETELY on the head of my dad; my mom did not ask for nor want to be left alone to raise 4 young kids on a fraction of the income that had been coming in, but she got it nonetheless. I don't care what the world thinks about divorced parents and divided homes: children raised with BOTH full-time loving parents have SIGNIFICANT advantages in stability (emotional and financial) as well as constant examples and figures to look up to. I didn't have that...I saw dad about once a week growing up and even then, I only got one-on-one attention from him maybe once a month or so on "date night" (which I did enjoy...I got to pick the restaurant and something fun to do). But still, that pales in comparison to if he hadn't left and we saw him and interacted with him every day and he was here for all our problems and difficulties rather than when they finally got so big he had to come here and intervene.

But anyway, as I mentioned, my Ridinger side has been slow to hear and even consider our side of things or even show some care for what we're feeling or to understand why. All through my life it's me who's the one who needs to be more "open-minded" or understanding, but never the other way around. They simply do not, and don't appear to try to, understand things they have not experienced themselves. I have NEVER closed the door on any of my family relationships (even with family members that they have severed ties to) and I have certainly not slammed and locked the door to my dad. But they need to understand that a relationship is a two-way street and that he, not me or my siblings, has done a lot to close the door by his actions throughout his life. One can only take so much of being treated as second-class so long before it gets to them. And despite that fact that we are now all adults, he also has to make a direct effort to reach out to us if he wants to retain the relationship; after all, he is still the father in this relationship. Our growing up has not eliminated his responsibilities as a father any more than his divorcing Mom did. Talking to his parents about the relationship is not reaching out to us; in fact, it's doing the opposite. For people who profess to be so "open-minded" and "liberal" they sure seem to have a hard time seeing anyone else's viewpoints or even trying to.

Notes on pictures: 1. Christmas 1989: Andy had just turned 10, I was almost 8, Katie had just turned 6, and Becky was almost 4; 2. Christmas 1990 with my dad and our new "Sound FX" toys (we still have those!). 1990 was about as close as we've gotten since the divorce to having a full-time dad again after he had moved back from Philadelphia and before my stepmom came into the picture; 3. I will give Dad credit for taking me on some fun trips like this one to Virginia Beach to visit my aunt in 1995; 4. My dad and Grandpa Ridinger with the four of us at Chimney Rock, North Carolina in July 1994.

California and Gay Marriage

So news broke today that the California State Supreme Court has overturned the state's definition of marriage as between one man and one woman as being unconstitutional by a 4-3 vote. OF COURSE I have something to say about this, but who knows, maybe I'll surprise someone with what I say...

It goes without saying that I'm disappointed with, but not at all surprised by this decision. This has been the argument not only for states passing their own constitutional amendments, but for passing a federal constitutional amendment as well. California banned gay marriages- and the recognition of gay marriages performed elsewhere- by virtue of a 2000 vote in which some 61% of the voters approved a measure which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Ohio has a similar law, but ours is a constitutional amendment approved in 2004; so the only thing that can supercede that would be a federal constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

As for this specific ruling, of course gays began to celebrate and party all over the country, but especially in California, which has a significant gay population. I can't say I blame them for being excited, even though it's an outcome I don't particularly care for. Unfortunately, this is hardly the end, and I don't say that as a "defiant conservative," but rather as someone who always tries to keep a level head and a realistic view of things. First, even if there were no other opposition to the ruling, it takes 30 days for judges' rulings to take effect in California, so the earliest the first gay marriages can happen is in mid June. Of course we all know there is opposition, though it seems unlikely that there will be any more court battles. From what I read, there are opportunities for the opposition, conservatives in this case, to ask for a stay on the decision or for the court to reconsider. I really doubt the court would reconsider based on the wording of their verdict and a stay also seems unlikely, even with the pending constitutional amendment coming up. That leads into the next item, the expected California amendment. Sometime next month we will find out if supporters were able to obtain enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot which would define marriage as between one man and one woman. Because it would be a constitutional amendment, it would override the recent court decision. If it does get on the ballot, it will most certainly be hotly contested and close and will probably get a lot of people to the polls that normally wouldn't vote. From what I've read, both sides seem pretty confident they can win, so I guess we'll see. Of course there is also the possibility of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but I don't see that happening. I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case at all because they would cite the fact that marriage is not listed as a federal responsibility in the U.S. constitution (10th amendment), so it is delegated to the states and therefore they have no jurisdiction over how to define it. Indeed, that's been the argument over a federal constituional amendment; that the issue should be decided by the states. Well, we're getting that and what we're getting is marriages that are recognized by some, but not all, of the states, even though we're all in the same country.

My personal opinion is that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. The minute you start redefining it, you open the door to any other "definition." What's to stop supporters of polygamy (not only more than one wife, but more than one husband), or group marriage, or even close-relative marriage? If you say that barring two people of the same sex from "marrying" is discriminatory, how is barring a woman from marrying a man who is already married not discriminatory? What if that woman is really poor and the man can take care of her? What if the first wife is OK with it? I really don't see how one can be defended and one cannot, and no, I would rather not see a return to legal polygamy even as a Mormon! Some say I'm just "overreacting" but really, what is to stop any other group who is "denied" marriage from seeking the same rights, no matter how "disgusting" or outlandish we think the idea is (remember, a lot of people think two people of the same sex getting married is "disgusting."). Really, the bottom line in my belief is that I believe God himself has defined marriage, not only through the Bible, but also in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and most importantly living prophets. That's not to say God hates gays because he does not; they are also his children who he cares about and loves. But any parent will agree that just because you love a child, that doesn't translate into you being "OK" with whatever they do; you have expectations and hopes even for adult children. I don't hate gay people...I have several friends who are gay, so I have some sort of understanding that it's not simply a "choice" to be gay. But in the end, how we act or don't act on our urges and wants is our choice, whether gay or straight, and we are accountable for our actions.

The importance of getting ALL the facts...

There are many lessons that I can take from the situation which continues to unfold in front of me concerning our house and the state of my family. Not only financial lessons (what NOT to do), but also life lessons. One that has really come to the front right now is the importance of withholding judgment until one has sufficient evidence for both sides of the story. Obviously, here, you have my dad's case of why he feels that he needs to do this, but you also have my case and my mom's case of how difficult of a spot this puts us in. Not only that, but the emotional aspects tied to the house and the relationship status between my dad and all of us. I won't go into great details here because my point is not to publicize our disagreements and problems. I only wish to make a point about judging.

It's a word Christians hear a lot, in particular that it's something we should not do. It comes from the Savior's teachings in Matthew 7:1-2: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. " It's a concept that Christians are familiar with, yet I've found few understand. It seems many believe that "not judging" means we cannot make decisions on people or things at all. But, as we all know, we have to make judgements every day on who we associate with or what we are going to do (among other things). Without judgments, we would never progress or learn. So, was Jesus trying to teach us that we shouldn't come to a decision? Hardly. What he is talking about is making improper judgments, or judgments without the full picture. This usually involves how we label people. The most common "judgments" I see around are more generalizations or oversimplifications we make about a person or group of people based on very little information or lack of experience. For instance, the idea that because someone is overweight it's because they're "lazy" or just "sit on their couch all day and eat junkfood." There are likely a variety of reasons why that person is overweight and unless we have a full look into how they actually live their life and all the things that affect them both phyiscally and mentally, labeling that person as "lazy" is an unrighteous judgment. While we can certainly make conjectures about why they may be overweight, we cross that line when we simply decide one is true and we condemn that person. There are other examples of unrighteous judgment too, of course. Sometimes in arguments it's easy to judge how someone is acting (or reacting) because we assume they are "just mean" or "hateful". In fact, it may be that we don't know something because of lack of experience, lack of understanding, or just ignorance of the history and background of that person. Sometimes too, we may simply just have one side of the story. So in reality, that person we think is "hateful" may actually have a wealth of experience that has caused them to not trust someone (or whatever the disagreement is over) and thus be perfectly justified in being upset.

OK, so how can we judge better? I'm OF COURSE not perfect, but I have found things that have helped me. It goes without saying that we need to get the whole story, especially when it involves two sides who disagree. That can involve asking people how and WHY they feel as such and truly being open to their responses. Being respectful of viewpoints and experiences is a big one too. It also involves being as fair as possible. This is a case where information from the Book of Mormon plays a key role in helping us to better understand what the Bible is trying to tell us. Moroni 7:15-18 gives us the counsel that not only are we to judge ourselves (we have to, like I said), but we are to do it with the "Spirit of Christ" (v. 16), also referred to as the "Light of Christ" (v. 18). The reason that God is able to judge us is because he is able to do it in perfect fairness. He knows all the sides of the argument, he knows the limitations or situational elements, and most of all he knows us; our tendancies, our strenghts, and our weaknesses. Through the Light of Christ, a power of discernment given to all of us, we can better judge not only right from wrong, but also who is right and who is in the wrong.

I am commenting on this in light of our current situation and judgments I feel are being made (some of which I have actually heard) about me or the situation in general. To the casual observer, it seems as though I and my mom should just "get on with life" and stop being so dependent. As I mentioned in my previous post, nothing would make me happier than being financially independent, but right now that is simply not possible. The same holds true for my mom; she is in this situation because she decided that raising her kids was her most important responsibility, followed by completing her college education, which she did in 2002. Now she is faced with an uncertain job market in art education and is relying on the unsteady pay (and lack of benefits) that comes with being a substitute teacher. Let's not forget SHE raised the four of us virtually solo with the financial help of my dad. Yes, my dad was hardly absent from my life, but it in no way compares with his role had he made different choices in his life and stayed a part of this family rather than pursue self-interests. I find it troubling and frustrating as well that the people who have security-- a place to live and a steady source of income-- are the ones telling me not to worry and that nothing is really wrong. Nothing will be wrong when I have an actual place to live (staying with someone is not living there) and some stability.