Salt Lake City – I don’t know why, but I find my thoughts lingering on the Death Penalty this morning. There isn’t any particular case troubling me, but I wanted to put some thoughts down on why I cannot justify any rationality for state-killing.

I suppose that each of us has felt the need for revenge at some point, whether it be a personal experience where someone has perpetrated some horror against us or perhaps just the effect of watching a monster on the evening news. Rapists, pedophiles, mass-murderers.. the revulsion each of us feels towards them can easily lead us down the path of wishes for violent retribution.

But no matter what my personal feelings towards these individuals are, I consistently find a single thought stopping me short of supporting the death penalty: What if we’re wrong?

There are times when there is no doubt that a person has committed some horrendous act, but those cases are by far the exception and by no means the rule in any criminal trial. More often, the accused person is faced with evidence such as eye-witnesses, which has been shown to be one of the most unreliable sources of information we could possibly rely on.

There have been over 270 documented cases of DNA evidence proving the innocence of convicts well after their trial has concluded and they have been sentenced to prison, many of those have been people who are sitting on death row based on unreliable evidence. Perhaps even more disturbing, there are at least 15 cases (that we know of) where an inmate has been executed only to later be exonerated and proven innocent.

Those statistic alone are enough for me to oppose the death penalty, but let’s also consider our moral obligations as members of the human race. At what point do we have the right to decide, as a society, that one of our own citizens is no longer worthy of life?

Let me be clear, the list of people I mentioned earlier – the pedophiles, rapists and serial killers – I feel no love for them. In fact, some stories which I read in the papers about these people make my physically ill. But at what point did life-in-prison become such a “soft penalty” in our minds?

I believe that we as a society have the right to remove a person’s freedoms, all of their freedoms, if they cause such an extreme measure of harm against others. I feel no ethical quandaries against “life in prison without the possibility of parole,” or even (in certain cases) permanent solitary confinement. But what satisfaction do we as a people gain from state execution? What greater level of safety does the public at large have if a mass murderer is killed rather than locked in a small room for the rest of their life? Does it satisfy justice, or merely our cries for revenge?

I’ve had this discussion many times with people who support the death penalty, and almost without exception the conversation inevitably turns towards money (a rather inhuman subject when discussing the value of human life if you ask me). “You expect us to pay for these murderers to stay in prison for life?” they ask. That’s a fair question. Should we, as tax-paying and law-abiding citizens, be required to foot the bill for a serial killer to spend the next 40 years in prison? But the rational mind must conclude that if we as a people wish to remove this person from our company, then we must also be prepared to cover the requisites for doing so.

And on the same point – wouldn’t it be cheaper just to put them to death – consider this: The cost of putting someone to death is far greater than the cost of putting them in prison for life. Remember that when someone is sentenced to execution, they’re not put to the needle the following day. Each of the 34 death-penalty-allowing states has strict requirements in the law which dictate multiple appeals must be made on the convicted’s behalf prior to the execution being carried out. I suppose you could call it a brief and inadequate nod to an attempt to find assurance the convicted is truly guilty. These additional trials, hearings, motions, and court appearances are incredibly expensive to us, the tax payers. In fact, it’s estimated that in California alone – the cost of their current death penalty system is between $137 million and $232 million annually. However if they were to switch all inmates on death row to a term of life in prison, that number would drop to $11 million annually. All morals and ethical questions aside, ending the state-sanctioned murder of inmates in all 32 states which currently allow it would save us hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

But for me it’s not the numbers I find persuadable, it’s the core of my being which begs me to consider: what if we’re wrong? What if the person we’re about to kill is actually innocent and somehow witnesses were mistaken, or evidence was tampered with, and the courts got it wrong? There are no take-backs with death. There is no margin for human error. Once we have killed someone, all possibility of miscalculation or new findings ceases and we simply have to live with our decision, even if later found to be incorrect.

It never ceases to sadden me that so many states, including my home Utah, allows our blood lust and desire for revenge to outweigh logic, ethics, morals and human value. What if we were wrong?

Minnesota – The North Star State is currently battling a Prop 8-style initiative. This last Sunday, the Mormon Church sent a letter to be read over the pulpit to every member, sending a strong message on how they are expected to vote.

Mormon Church issues letter to all MN members, reminding them to support anti-lgbt legislation

In all too familiar shades of California in 2008, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has kicked off its political campaign in Minnesota by using their religious pulpits to influence the November vote on same sex marriage.

Q Salt Lake Reports:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints read a letter to all Minnesota wards on Sunday, Jan. 15 reminding church-goers that “the family is the fundamental unit of society” and urged them to re-read the “Proclamation of the Family,” which begins, “We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”

Church members were also asked to “prayerfully consider how to get involved,” according to the author of the blog, Key Lime Piety.

The letter “concluded with a reminder that church buildings and directories are not to be used for political purposes – with this caveat: unless otherwise directed,” the article continued.

“Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity,” according to the proclamation.

In May of 2011, the Minnesota Legislature passed SF 1308, which amends their State Constitution to restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples. To become law, it will have to pass a vote of the people in November of this year.

Minnesota Governor Dayton (Democrat) does not have the power to veto a constitutional amendment, however he issued a symbolic veto on May 25, 2011, and sent a letter to the state’s Legislature calling it, “mean-spirited, divisive, un-Minnesotan and un-American.”

To be clear, same sex marriage is not currently legal in Minnesota. The proposed amendment, similar to Amendment 3 in Utah, would only codify the anti-lgbt law into the State Constitution. Even if SF 1308 is defeated, marriage equality will still be illegal in Minnesota.

As I’m reviewing the 2011 Utah political history, I’m struck by how often I hear people such as Carl Wimmer, Stephen Sandstrom and Mike Lee spouting off about only supporting the Constitution in its original form. I an only say, “What utter nonsense and lack of vision.”

Do you have a dollar bill? Take it out right now and look at the back. Notice the seal with the pyramid? It’s unfinished. That’s what our country is and how we should treat it: unfinished.

The United States of America is not a perfect nation, but rather a Great nation striving for perfection. Our successes come through research, public discussion and debate, while our failures tend to derive from a close-minded sense that things “used to be better.”

Things did not “used to be better.” In this great experiment called America we are constantly refining our way of life in that great hope of achieving something better than what we have today.

Government is the voice and tool of the people. Government is how we look out for one another, and build our futures. Are there confines which should be placed around this tool in order to ensure equity and justice? Certainly; for this tool can be used for both good and evil, and has. But that does not, nor should it, create the animosity towards the very basics of government which we see arising from the Tea Party and their candidates like Mr’s Wimmer, Sandstrom and Lee. In fact, those who tear down and rant against government should consider themselves unpatriotic and thoroughly un-American.

Our nation is a vision. A vision which I am constantly saddened to see our Republican Representatives in Utah fail to grasp and take delight in as so many others, including myself, do. They seem to place an almost deity-level of admiration upon the founders of our great country, and praise them for creating a “perfect” document in the Constitution. But let me tell you, I think that Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues would be horrified at that suggestion. What arrogance our dear Republicans seem to believe the Founders must have had to have believed that they had created perfect, unalterable laws which would last throughout eternity despite any changes in the world.

For certain these were brilliant and wise men, but they were not gods, nor clairvoyants, nor seers. They could not know what new events, principles, truths and circumstances we were to face in the future, and the guiding document they provided was just that, a guide. A structure, foundation and framework upon which we could build our country into the great nation that it is today.

It is time for us to take hold of the Vision once again. We must capture that lost sense of Grandeur within the halls of our Capitols, and once again make them a sacred place of serious discussions and honest public debate. We must leave behind us the rancid and worthless bickering over message bills and move this Country forward as a light to all the world.

It seems almost anyone even remotely interested in the Republican nomination for President this cycle has had their moment in the spotlight. Everyone, that is, except for Rick Santorum. Many are beginning to attribute his lack of public attention to his extremist anti-gay rhetoric.

Rick "google me" Santorum

Now to be fair, there are other GOP candidates who also haven’t had much of the limelight, namely Utah’s Jon Huntsman. But there’s a big difference between a virtually unknown late-comer to the race, and former Senator Santorum who has been running full steam since the beginning.

In virtually every other aspect, from healthcare to the military, Santorum would appear to be the darling of the Tea Party right. So to account for his apparent lack of support for his campaign, we might assume that it would be his overtly aggressive stances against basic civil liberties for LGBT people.

There isn’t a single Republican candidate for President that I would consider a friend of the LGBT community, but there’s a bright line between opposing marriage equality and going out of your way to spew vitriolic and false propaganda.

Here’s a few Santorum gems:

“But what I can say is that the state is not doing a service to the child and to society by not putting that child in a home where there is a mother and a father. This is common sense. This is nature. And what we’re trying to do is defy nature because a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society. And I just don’t think that’s to the benefit of society or to the child.” (2011)

“I’m worried when many people will stand up and say, ‘well whatever the Generals want.’ I’m not too sure that we haven’t indoctrinated the Officer Corps in this country that they can actually see straight to make the right decisions.” (On repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) (2011)

…if same sex marriage was legalized then their sexual activity would be seen as equal to heterosexual relationships and it would be taught in schools. (2011)

It seems that the country is finally moving along fast enough that a campaign based squarely and solely on attacks against homosexuality finds itself dead upon arrival. Distortions against any minority community, while perhaps previously effective, no longer carry the social legitimacy they used to – especially among voters under 40 who are less and less likely to be opposed to fellow citizens simply because of how they were born.

Perhaps other Republicans who are considering future runs for office would do well to take note of the failed “Google Me” Santorum campaign, and the results of a campaign based on hate.

*quotes courtesy of The New Civil Rights Movement

California – The California Supreme Court has just released their ruling on the question of Standing in the Prop 8 case. According to the court, Yes-On-8 supporters DO have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling which struck down Prop 8, even though the California Government has refused to appeal.

Although many in the LGBT and Allies community are lamenting the decision, this ruling is actually great news.

To try and make it as clear as possible, once Judge Walker invalidated Prop 8 in 2010, the California Governor and Attorney General refused to appeal his ruling, saying that they were satisfied. This meant that the case would go no further and Marriage Equality would immediately be reinstated throughout California.

However, Prop 8 proponents filed an emergency stay in appellate court, demanding that Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling not take effect until they could appeal his ruling. But first they had to prove to the court that have standing to appeal, since the defendant in the case was not Prop 8 proponents, but the State of California.

So why is this a good ruling? Doesn’t this mean that the Pro-8′ers now get to appeal Walker’s ruling? Well yes, but what we need to keep in mind is that while the Pro-8 folks may have standing, they definitely have proven that what they don’t have – is a case. From the beginning of the Prop 8 trial, every single one of their “expert” witnesses either quit before they testified, or their theories were completely shattered by the amazing legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies. Prop 8 supporters were never once able to even come close to proving that allowing same sex couples to marry somehow was harmful to straight-couples’ marriages.

So now the Prop 8 case can move on, moving up the federal courts until, I predict, it eventually ends up in the United States Supreme Court. And when the ruling is inevitably upheld by the highest court in the land, it no longer effects just California, but all 50 states in the country!

So yes, even though this ruling was in favor of the anti-gay extremists, it’s still a victory for us. So let’s all sit back and giggle as Paul Mero sends out his tweets thinking this is good for his side

You can see the full ruling here.

Rep Carl Wimmer, Candidate For Congress, endorses official hate group FRC

Salt Lake City, Utah – At his press conference today, we asked State Representative (and Congressional candidate) Carl Wimmer why he brought a SPLC-certified Hate Group to Utah. His response? He fully endorses them.

The Family Research Council is known nationwide for their mistruths, twisting and even outright lies. Their claims have been denounced by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others. Most notably, they’ve earned themselves the same ranking with the Southern Poverty Law Center as the Ku Klux Klan – Hate Group.

So it surprised us to learn that a Utah Legislator would invite them to speak jointly with him. I wanted to see it for myself so I drove down to Murray and sure enough, there was the FRC’s tour bus and their Senior Vice President, Tom McClusky, speaking with Representative Carl Wimmer.

I asked Representative Wimmer what the voters of Utah Congressional District 4 would think about him bringing in such an embarrassing group, and although he at first tried not to respond he eventually said that he fully endorses the Family Research Council.

Wow. With all the problems going on in Utah right now, do we really need one of our own elected officials sending the signal to the nation that Utahns are so out of touch that they endorse hate? I don’t think so.

I would hope that Carl Wimmer simply isn’t familiar with the past work of the FRC, and that he apologizes to the people of Utah for insulting them.

“Rising Nepal” is a daily newspaper in the small South-Asia country of Nepal, which happens to be where Utah State Representative Jen Seelig (HD 23) is on vacation right now. Imagine her surprise when she opened the paper to find news about Utah anti-LGBT Halloween party rules.

The Salt Lake Tribune published an article by reporter Peggy Fletcher a few days ago, talking about a local Mormon Ward in Sandy, Utah which distributed a flyer to their local neighborhood stating that “cross-gender dressing” was not welcome.

That story made it west across the United States, across the Pacific Ocean, and onto the table of Representative Seelig in Nepal when she opened up the paper at breakfast.

“I was saddened,” Seelig tells PRIDEinUtah by text message, “that the wonderful state in which I live would be represented in an international venue with such mean spiritedness and ignorance.”

The Bishop of the Mormon Ward in Sandy, Dennis Toone, told the Tribune that the restriction was placed on the flyer because LDS Church rules required it. That was quickly rebuffed by official church spokesman Scott Trotter, who said that no such rule existed.

Midvale, Utah – Alan Anderson is an openly gay man running for City Council in Midvale District 3. But despite the fact that he’s running against an opponent who’s on probation after pleading guilty to fraud this year, there are still some voters who say on camera they won’t vote for him because he’s gay.

Alan Anderson

After PRIDEinUtah’s story a few days ago pointing out that the front runner for the small City Council race, Paul Hunt, is on probation over a fraud conviction, local news station Fox13 sent a reporter and camera down to Midvale to follow up on the issue. But what they found was more than a little shocking. On camera, some residents said that they were shocked to learn about Paul Hunt’s fraud conviction, but would probably still be voting for him come election day in a couple of weeks. Yet still others, like Rolando Alba, said that they were simply going to not vote this year, because “I don’t like gays and I don’t like robbers.”

Time to step up Utah. PRIDEinutah is officially endorsing Alan Anderson for Midvale City Council in District 3 and he needs your support! Take a moment and jump over to his website, anderson4midvale.com and through him a couple bucks or lend him a hand walking his district!

Midvale, Utah – The Midvale City Council race for District 3 is drawing some interest around the state, as the frontrunner candidate plead guilty to defrauding his company last February.

Paul Hunt

In the last few years, Infobase Media Corp, the parent company to LDS Audio, says that candidate Paul Hunt was stealing money from them, using his company credit card to make personal purchases including restaurant meals and fireworks from Wyoming. The charges culminated with Hunt pleading guilty this past February.

But it seems that Midvale voters either don’t have a problem with the fraud conviction – or they’re not aware of it – as they gave Mr. Hunt almost 55% of the vote in the primaries last month.

Hunt’s opponent, Alan Anderson, so far has tried not to make the obvious conflict an issue in the race, preferring to let the voters draw their own conclusions. When asked directly about Hunt’s guilty plea to fraud, Mr. Anderson said, “”Mr. Hunt’s legal issues are his issues, they do not affect me personally, but they could have an effect on the people of Midvale. I am running for the people of Midvale. I am not running for myself, or for any personal recognition. My beliefs are that if I can help my fellow man, my life will be bettered.

Mr. Anderson has a long way to go to make up another 30% of the vote by the November elections though, so we do have to wonder whether Mr. Hunt’s fraud will still become an issue in the race for city council.

Salt Lake City, Utah – The final day of the Utah Redistricting special session has been marred by lie after lie from the Republican Legislators. Including a brand new map which they claim has been publicly vetted despite proof to the contrary.

Republicans "Fake-Garber" map

In a closed-door caucus meeting this morning, void of any public view, the Utah Republicans drew a new map which they entitled “Modified Garber,” hoping that the public would accept it as a slight change to the map drawn by Utah County citizen Dave Garber which gained enormous bipartisan support among citizens as well as Democrat Legislators. Unfortunately the monstrosity that was created bears almost no resemblance to the Garber map, but neatly creates 4 districts with 65% Republican voters with custom drawn districts for Carl Wimmer as well as either Mayor Mia Love or Representative Sandstrom to run for Congress.

But the Dog and Pony show was just getting started, as the moment the House was called to order the Republicans began their instant lies about the nature and origin of the “Fake-Garber” map. Representatives Sumsion and Dougall claimed that the map had been publicly vetted and had been “online for weeks,” despite the fact that it had only been uploaded an hour before. They continued by lauding the map as a “bipartisan effort” even though it had no support among Democrat legislators.

It seemed that the day was only a proud one for the Democrats, as one by one they stood up to show the bill for what it truly was. Brian King (D) and David Litvack (D) especially took the GOP to task, with house Minority Leader Litvack courageously noting that the new map was a fraud and “Pulled the wool over the eyes of Utahns.”

The Real Garber Map

The Republicans could only weakly counter, with House Majority Leader Brad Lee (R) calling Litvack the legislative equivalent to a meany-head, followed by the Sutherland Institute’s flunky (Rep LaVar Christensen) claiming that God’s blessings were on the side of the Republicans.

Meanwhile on Twitter, the Republicans faced even further embarrassment as Dave Garber himself released a statement calling the GOP’s Fake-Garber a complete distortion and in no way similar to the map that he drew.

As of 3:50pm, the Republicans are in a closed-door caucus once again. They’re expected to come back with once again a brand new, never before seen by the public map.

UPDATE: Now hearing that the Utah Republicans are coming back once again from closed-door meeting with a brand new map, loosely based on Sen. Okerlund’s ideas.