PRIDE in Utah

Posted By Eric Ethington (Author) on October 2, 2012

After this morning’s KSL debate between Congressman Jim Matheson and challenger Mia Love – many people were left wondering where Mia Love actually stands on some of the issues.

In their opening statements, Jim Matheson touted his bipartisan voting record – saying that working with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress is critical to accomplishing anything. By comparison Mia Love opened with an out and out attack, going after Matheson for his supporting both Democratic and Republican proposals.

But 30 seconds later, when the first question posed by moderator Doug Wright was how we can break the Washington-gridlock and start working again, Love turned 180 degrees and praised the ideas of bipartisanship and working together to solve problems. It’s a contrast that has been noted before by others, as Mia Love’s campaign has evolved to become a hyper-partisan anti-Democrats machine. Personally, I wish that moderator Doug Wright had challenged both Mia Love and Jim Matheson to name policies from across the aisle that they support. Matheson likely wouldn’t have a problem doing so, as he has a long record of voting with Republicans half the time, but the interesting response would have been from Love – whom I have never heard say a single positive thing about her potential colleagues across the aisle.

Lastly (and I know I’ve mentioned it before, but it’s a real sticking point for me), I have to mention that once again, for those of us hoping to hear an answer from Mia Love on her plans to cut student aid for college students, we were heavily disappointed. Prior to her nomination at the Republican State Party Convention earlier this year, Love put out a written budget that promised to completely cut all student loans, pell grants, work study and aid to college students, despite the fact that she used these same programs to put herself through college and more than 75% of the students in Utah are currently using them to get through school. The proposal helped her win over some of the more extreme delegates at the convention, clinching the nomination for her. But since then, as she has addressed the more rational general population, Mia has done everything possible to distance herself from it.

In every debate against Matheson over the past few weeks, Ms. Love has been asked to explain hear reasoning behind such drastic cuts to a popular program that helps people get a college education. Without exception, her responses have been dodgy. During the KUTV/Salt Lake Tribune debate, Love tried to sidestep, claiming that the proposals she had put out “were only to start the conversation,” and shouldn’t be taken as her actual opinions. One can’t help but notice the parallel argument to former Representative John Dougall, who (in his current race to become State Auditor) is claiming that he only sponsored the Anti-GRAMA bill to “start the conversation.” Today, during the KSL debate, Love sidestepped the question again, quickly backing into her talking points on secondary education and curriculum decisions (obviously completely unrelated to the question of cutting student aid).

Mia Love’s proposals aren’t all bad, in fact some of them could even garner Democratic support. Yet that’s precisely the tone that seems to be missing from her campaign. She acknowledges that bipartisanship is key to accomplishing anything, yet you’ll never hear her say anything positive about a Democrat – or demonstrate her willingness to work with others.

Congressman Matheson has that bipartisan record. Sometimes he votes with his fellow Democrats, sometimes he votes with Republicans, but it’s always a vote that he feels is best for the people of Utah. I don’t always agree with him, in fact I’ve severely disagreed with him many times, but I’ll always give Matheson respect for having well-thought-out reasons for voting the way he does. No one can argue that Matheson knows what he’s talking about, he’s the policy wonk of policy wonks – and even though we sometimes disagree, I can always respect someone willing to work across the aisle.

Category: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
Tags: 4, 4th, congress, congressional district, conservative, debate, democrat, doug wright, gop, jim matheson, ksl, liberal, mia love, politics, recap, republican, review, tea party, utah

Posted By Eric Ethington (Author) on September 27, 2012

In a not-yet released interview with a Nevada NBC affiliate, former Utah Governor and former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman Jr. told reporter Elizabeth Crum that it’s time to “take that journey” towards marriage equality.

Back in February of 2009, just before leaving office as Utah’s Governor to become the US Ambassador to China, Mr. Huntsman became the first Governor of Utah to endorse Civil Unions for same sex couples. But now, it seems, Huntsman has drawn even closer to supporting full marriage equality.

In a clip obtained by PRIDEinUtah, Huntsman was asked if he agreed with gay marriage. The following is his response:

Jon Huntsman close to endorsing marriage equality

I think we can take that journey.  We need to be having a conversation of how to take this journey…..where do we go, and each day we need to be able to do it differently. I came out at a time when it was most unpopular in the state of Utah many years ago…because I thought it was the right landing spot for people in my state, now the conversation may have been different in other states, but I find how can you move the equality forward in Utah and I thought at the time civil unions was the right place for this discussion to take place. maybe it goes beyond now….but at the time i at least wanted to put something on the table I thought spoke fairness and equality most immediately. 

I think the Republican Party’s focus needs to be on equality. I go back and I think what would Abraham Lincoln be doing if he were here today. I think he would make the fundamentally American argument that Equality under the law is an American value. And it’s one that I stand for as well.

(emphasis mine)

Although Mr. Huntsman doesn’t outright say it, I don’t think he could have come closer to endorsing full marriage equality without actually saying so.

Mr. Huntsman is giving the keynote address tonight at Equality Utah’s annual gala, the Allies Dinner. It’s possible he might be planning to take it further in his speech. PRIDEinUtah will be in attendance, ready to update with any developments.

Category: Gay Marriage, Local In Utah, National/International | 1 Comment »
Tags: allies dinner, Endorses, Equality Utah, Gay, Gay Marriage, interview, jon huntsman, jr, lgbt, marriage equality, remarks, utah

Posted By Eric Ethington (Author) on September 17, 2012

When will they realize that we have longer than 30 second memories? Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is drowning his credibility and integrity in the bathtub, just so he can take a weak potshot at President Obama.

Remember Romney’s welfare work requirement scandal? He got nailed by news networks and fact-checking organizations nationwide when he started running ads (and his surrogates started claiming on air) claiming that President Obama had “gutted” or “stripped” the work requirements out of welfare – while the truth behind the story was that Obama had granted a request made by a group of Republican Governors (including Utah’s Governor Herbert) to have the flexibility to tryout their own ideas on welfare work-requirements, as long as the new ideas were estimated to at least 20% more work.

The fallout against the Romney campaign was severe, and eventually led to that now infamous line spoken by Romney campaign spokesman Neil Newhouse announced that the Romney Campaign “isn’t going to be dictated to by fact-checkers.”

But rather than drop the issue, and attempt to move away from the subject prior to the November election, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch has decided to jump on board – doubling down on what was given “Four Pinnochios” by the Washington Post.

This morning he tweeted:

There’s several things in his tweet to talk about it. First of all, what happened to the “valiant support for states’ rights” Hatch pledged to Republican State Delegates this past spring, when he was worried about losing at convention to Dan Liljenquist? The 36-year Senator swung his positions hard-right to prevent a loss to the tea party, and the highlight of his then-stump speech was a focus on the ability of states to make decisions for themselves.

Senator Orrin Hatch flip flops again

So perhaps Orrin Hatch is just hoping that we’ll forget that this flexibility waiver President Obama granted does exactly what the GOP has been demanding, and gives states like Utah (who requested this exact waiver) more control over how welfare is implemented within their borders.

Also, despite his new flavor of rhetoric this month (as Hatch hopes to curry favor with the Romney camp), Orrin Hatch has been a proponent of welfare work requirement reform in the past – claiming that the system needs upgrading.

This sudden flip flop may play well for Senator Hatch on the national scene among his fellow DC Republicans, but one has to wonder how it will play here at home. Surely Governor Herbert, who requested the waiver in the first place and kicked off this whole mess for Romney, isn’t all-too-pleased that Hatch is now going around bashing his policies on national tv. And surely all those Republican State Delegates who voted for Hatch just months ago are now feeling a bit burned that he’s already turned around on his promise to fight for states’ rights.

One can only wonder.

Category: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Tags: congress, conservative, flip flop, Governor, herbert, Obama, orrin hatch, republican, requirement, senate, senator, states rights, tea party, utah, waiver, welfare, work

Posted By Eric Ethington (Author) on September 15, 2012

Earlier today, the Sutherland Institute and the John Birch Society jointly sponsored the grossly misnamed “Freedom Conference.” Unfortunately, it seems facts were checked at the door – in favor of yet another echo chamber for Utah Republicans to spin their empty rhetoric.

Attorney General candidate John Swallow (whom PRIDEinUtah has been told is under FBI investigation for fraud) and Congressman Rob Bishop (who famously uttered to the Salt Lake Tribune in 2002 that “the only difference between blacks and guns is that blacks have legs”) recited the Republican talking point that the only way Utah can fund our schools is if we declare war on the Federal Government and demand that they surrender public land so that it can be sold off. This claim has been discredited multiple times by constitutional attorneys, and even the conservative legislature’s own attorney who drafted the bill, John Fellows, publicly stated that the push is unconstitutional.

In addition to the proposed take-over of the United States by Utah being unconstitutional, the GOP’s claim that Utah cannot possible fund neighborhood schools without selling off our wilderness to British Petroleum is laughable.

Until the early 1990′s, when the Republican Party had just finished its takeover of the Utah Legislature, Utah was 12th in the nation on school funding and fully competitive and comparable to schools anywhere else in the country. Because things were so good and our schools were doing so well, the new conservatives on Utah’s Capitol Hill sold Utah on the idea that it was ok to borrow a little money from the General Education Fund, and siphon the money off to other areas more important to their agenda such as further tax breaks and incentives for oil and mining companies.

That trend has continued for the last 20 years, until we have now found ourselves at dead-last nationwide on funding, a graduation rate that has fallen 8.9% in the past ten years, and an overall ranking of “C – ” for quality of education. Facts that Congressman Bishop and Attorney General candidate John Swallow seem insistent on ignoring.

Congressional candidate Chris Stewart, who has been using his campaign as a platform to promote his books where he describes himself as a “miracle” for the country, spoke but didn’t seem to have anything to add to the conversation, resigning his remarks to catchphrases like “we’re too important to fail.”

But perhaps the most flabbergasting of the speakers was Mia Love, who’s running for Congress in Utah’s new 4th congressional district. Following up Bishop and Swallow’s untrue claims about public lands and education funding, Mia promised to “restore the America that we know and love.” We have to ask what she could possibly mean by such a statement.

Perhaps she means the days where every American had the possibility of attending college, thanks to student aid programs from a government that recognized investing in a more educated populace leads to a stronger economy? No, that can’t be it – she’s proposed eliminating all student aid programs like pell grants, loans and work study (even though 3/4 of Utah college students rely on them, and she herself used the same programs to put herself through college).

Perhaps Mia means the good old days where the country adopted a “we’re all in this together” attitude and worked to help every American build themselves up and achieve the American Dream? Well, no it’s not that either – she’s proposed massive cuts to low-income assistance that benefits single mothers, the elderly, and the disabled.

But perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at the outcome of the so-called “Freedom Conference.” After all, it was sponsored by the Sutherland Institute, who’s president Paul Mero once stated that it was ridiculous to claim that “love” is what makes a family – and the John Birch Society that accuses American Presidents (both Democrats and Republicans) of being communists and is often linked to racist conspiracy claims.

Category: Local In Utah | No Comments »
Tags: birchers, chris stewart, conservative, dead last, democrat, freedom conference, funding, john birch society, john swallow, land, liberal, mia low, nation, politics, public land, ranking, republican, rob bishop, school, sutherland institute, utah

Posted By Eric Ethington (Author) on September 10, 2012

As we enter the final two months of the 2012 elections, I find myself more and more often drawn into conversations about whether or not President Barack Obama has done enough to improve America’s economic outlook. I wanted to put out some thoughts about it.

Since the 2007 crash under President George W. Bush, which launched us into the greatest financial recession our country has seen since the early 20th century, the federal government has seen two very unique power structures. The first was a strong Democratic control of both Congress, the Senate, and the White House as a result of voter’s outrage at conservatives for allowing the housing and financial markets to weaken themselves to the point of such a crash. The second power structure is what we have seen since the 2010 midterm elections, with a wildly anti-government contingent of Congressman in full control of Congress, paired with only a slight Democratic majority in the Senate.

During the President’s first two years in office, while the Democrats enjoyed a majority in both Houses, many key investments were made for America’s future: Wall Street Reform, TARP, the Auto-Industry Bailout, the Fair Pay Act, Credit Protections and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to name a few. Yet, while many sound economic recovery programs were put in place, many others were left behind. This is one of the points I have disagreed with the President on. From 2009-2010, both the President as well as leading Democrats in the legislative bodies made overt efforts to reach across the aisle to find compromise and agreements with their Republican counterparts, only to be rebuffed and labeled as Socialists and Marxists. I fully supported those bipartisan attempts, however once those rejections were made clear it seems the more prudent direction would have been to take advantage of their majority status and pass through further recovery packages anyway, even if it meant no Republican support.

Once the balance of power shifted in 2010, such efforts were no longer a possibility in any sense, with Republicans gaining the requisite amount of seats to both prevent Democratic legislation in the House as well as filibuster bills into obscurity in the Senate. The moment of possibility had passed. Since January of 2011, when this new breed of anti-government purists took control of Congress, any pretense of helping the country climb back into prosperity was quickly abandoned, with Republicans quickly making it clear that their priority was not economic growth, but the defeat of President Obama in 2012.

Unsurprisingly, this complete and total objection to any Democratic proposals, whether or not they may have agreed with them, has prevented further policies and financial vehicles from being put in place to speed up job growth.

This leads me back to the original question, of whether the President has done enough to warrant a second term. But perhaps that isn’t the right question. Since the economy has, in fact, improved (albeit slowly) under President Obama, perhaps the better query posed would be “Does the Republican ticket have a legitimate economic plan that would lead to a speedier recovery than the recovery under President Obama?” It seems a reasonable question, since the last time we faced a Republican majority we saw a radical deregulation of the financial industry which was largely responsible for this mess in the first place.

So let’s take a look. Governor Mitt Romney and his running mate Congressman Paul Ryan have said that their financial plan is comprised primarily of roughly $5 Trillion in tax cuts for many Americans, which they will pay for by eliminating loopholes in the tax code. Unfortunately for those seeking an alternative to President Obama, that’s the end of their plan. No amount of pushing, pulling, cajoling, or ridiculing by fiscal analysts, the media, or Democrats have been successful in getting the Romney/Ryan campaign to elaborate on any further details such as “which loopholes?” or “how much?” Instead, they have stated that revealing details of their plan would “only give more fodder to the Democrats” (isn’t that called debate… what we’re supposed to be doing?), and that they’ll “work it out with Congress once elected.”

As was highlighted in Charlotte this past week, projecting the outcome of such vagueness is difficult to pinpoint. But the consensus among the major financial institutions is that one of three outcomes is likely to come about. First, it is possible that the ads being run by the Obama Campaign are correct, and in order for Romney to pay for his high tax cuts, he would have to eliminate so many loopholes in the tax code that he would also end up ending deductions for things like home mortgages or church donations – resulting in an average of a $2000 tax increase on the average American family. The second possibility is that they wouldn’t find enough money in tax loopholes to pay for the tax cuts, leading to cuts to essential services such as food and water safety, research investment, infrastructure, and federal student aid (such as pell grants).  The third possibility is the scariest, although I believe the most likely as it was what occurred under Presidents Reagan and George W Bush (not HW), and that’s that they won’t pay for the tax cuts at all, leading to further explosion in our nation’s debt and deficits.

By comparison, President Obama did manage to build a floor under the falling economy, engineered the rescue and recovery of the auto-industry (worth 1.1 Million jobs in the U.S.), and has presided over 30 straight months  of job growth (4.5 Million new jobs in the last 4 years). His primary plan moving forward, the American Jobs Act (first proposed in 2011), is estimated to add an additional 1 Million new private sector jobs as well as decrease our nation’s debt by over $4 Trillion. Unfortunately the American Jobs Act was immediately stalled by Congressional Republicans who are more interested in making our economic recovery outlook as bleak as possible, which they hope will be a reflection of President Obama rather than themselves. But even with the American Jobs Act, the economic policies enacted by the Obama Administration are estimated by independent analysts to create an additional 12 Million jobs over the coming 4 years, even if the President doesn’t do anything additional to speed the process along.

I’ve never made any secret of the fact that I consider myself to be a liberal, and frequent supporter of Democratic candidates. However, I also consider myself to be much more of an idealist rather than an ideologue.  While some say there is no difference, I believe idealists are those who have a natural inclination towards an ideology, but maintain a sense of openness – readily eager to listen to new ideas and rationally consider concepts not previously engaged. On the other hand, an ideologue would be one who approaches a problem with a predetermined outcome and/or belief, which naturally leaves any who opposes their point of view as automatically wrong, regardless of what they were contributing to the debate. This makes idealists more suited to finding bipartisan solutions and reach compromise – in other words, govern.

In my opinion, the current Republican Party is being led by these types of ideologues – unwilling to listen to ideas or compromise because they approach their tasks with the notion that they are already correct. Even those Republicans within their own Party who show an interest in actual governance are immediately shunned, disparaged as traitors or RINO’s, and pushed and bullied to the point where they completely leave their party (ie.. Arlen Spector or Olympia Snowe) or are defeated in inner-party races (ie.. Bob Bennett) in favor of more tow-the-line teapartiers.

You may not be happy with the moderate speed the economic recovery occurring under President Obama, but until the Romney/Ryan campaign push forward any details of their plan that would make it fiscally possible or show any sign that it would be better than the current Administration, and until the Republican Party abandons this extreme-right ideologue bent, the choice this November isn’t even really a choice – it’s just common sense. We either move forward as a nation, or we grind to a halt – or worse, move backwards.

Category: National/International | No Comments »
Tags: conservative, democrat, details, economy, Eric Ethington, jobs, liberal, loopholes, moderate, Obama, policy, quotes, record, recovery, republican, romney, slow, tax cuts, utah

Posted By Eric Ethington (Author) on August 7, 2012

Yesterday, City Weekly reporter Brandon Burt penned an open letter to me, asking why protests against Chick-fil-A in Utah fizzled out, and how the LGBT community of Utah can move forward. Sheesh… talk about pressure.

As Brandon mentions in his letter, the past year has been an exciting one for the LGBT community. For the first time ever, a sitting United States President fully endorsed equal treatment of LGBT citizens – followed soon after by the Democratic Party officially adding marriage equality to their platform. The discriminatory Prop 8 was shot down by the 9th circuit court. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was struck down in court multiple times (I’ve honestly lost track of how many times now). And even here in Utah, Harrisville and Springdale became the 14th and 15th cities or municipalities in Utah to adopt Non-Discrimination policies.

But perhaps most noteworthy of all, a study performed by Brigham Young University revealed that a full 71% of Utah voters support either civil unions or marriage for same sex couples. That’s no small accomplishment for Utah’s LGBT community, considering that a short 8 years ago that number was only 46%. We are no longer the minority, the tide has shifted and we have now become the majority.

Immediately following the aftermath of Proposition 8′s passage in November of 2008, the long-dormant LGBT activist community of Utah awoke with a ferocity. Protest after protest rose up all over the state, with queer people and their allies striking back against the injustices we have suffered for so many years. A new and younger generation of activists, myself included, found themselves waking up to the world for the first time, with feelings of both hope and outrage brought on by the inspiration of a new President coupled with the horror of being told so bluntly we were not people.

And yet, that was then. The Utah LGBT community hasn’t seen a major protest since October of 2010, when nearly 5,000 gathered to surround Temple Square, protesting not Boyd K Packer’s right to speak his mind, but the message he delivered. Where has the massive outcry been since then? We seem to have fallen dormant yet again. Or have we?

The battle for true equality is not won in the streets with megaphones and signs, that is where it begins. The battle for the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens is won when the same-sex couple invite their neighbors over to share a meal. When the employee brings his or her partner to the company picnic (they still have those, right?). When the young student comes out to their friends. It is those little acts of courage and bravery that have truly gotten us to where we are today, and have more to do with why 71% of Utah supports us than any protest does.

But those acts of courage and bravery aren’t going to win us equal rights either. Even though we in Utah now enjoy such tremendous support, we still have yet to penetrate the thick, dull-headed bubble of the Utah Legislature – even for something as simple as a Non-Discrimination law.

What will win the day is for us as a community and our allies to once again rise up and shine. This new lackadaisical slump we have found ourselves in must once again be cast off with renewed purpose. But it is not to rallies or protests we must now rise to, it is to the voting booth. Our apathy and fear of the political world must be shirked. The conservatives in the Utah Legislature only continue their tyranny of us as a people because we let them, because we have allowed them to continue in their false notions that Utah is not ready for equality.

It is time for us to rise and shine. It is time for us to seize our own destiny, and recognize that it is incumbent upon us to take what we deserve as citizens of the United States of America and show the world that we are exactly what we should be, equal to all others. Each and every LGBT person and our allies must know precisely who we are voting for, from President, to Congress, to Governor, to Legislator, to City Council. Talk to them, ask them questions, tell them what equality means to you and make sure every single person you know does the same until they realize our numbers are not something to be scoffed at. Equality will not come until we make sure there isn’t a candidate in Utah that hasn’t heard from us and know that opposition to equal treatment of citizens will no longer be tolerated. Personal beliefs are personal beliefs, but no citizen of this great nation is to be denied recognition under the law. It is time.

Rise and shine Utah.

Category: Local In Utah | 1 Comment »
Tags: activist, brandon burt, byu, candidates, city weekly, Eric Ethington, Gay, Gay Marriage, lgbt, Political, poll, the future, utah

Posted By Eric Ethington (Author) on July 19, 2012

After news broke today that a Utah Tea Party activist has been charged with raping 4 women, the amount of political rhetoric creeping out is disgusting.

Look, can we all just calm down and drop the politics for a moment?

After the story broke, several GOP activists took to twitter accusing the reporter who broke the story of purposefully trying to connect the Tea Party or the Utah Republican Party with the rape of these 4 women. Guys, come on – seriously?

I’m not sure who the GOP thinks the Utah Media are, or who Utah Democrats are, that ANYONE would think that because someone in a leadership position committed (allegedly) these atrocities that reporters or Dems or anyone else would automatically assume that the Republican Party itself was involved – but the idea is simply ludicrous.

One slime ball allegedly committed these crimes. That’s it, and we all know it. There’s no need for parties or candidates to issue statements trying distance themselves from this prick.

How about we all just agree that the only human thing to do here is to express our absolute sorrow for these women and their families, recognize that this has nothing to do with any candidate, campaign or party, and perhaps see what we can do for the victims.

I echo the call made by the Alliance for a Better UTAH, if any candidate happened to receive money either directly from Peterson, or even if it was indirectly through him, it would be a great show of unity for the entire state if that money was donated to groups like the Utah Rape Recovery Center to go towards preventing such tragedies from happening again.

Category: Local In Utah | 2 Comments »
Tags: democrat, donate, greg peterson, money, politics, rape, rape recovery center, republican, tea party, utah

Posted By Eric Ethington (Author) on June 19, 2012

While defending a decision by the Davis County School Board not to let LGBT parents be added to a meeting agenda, District Spokesman Chris Williams may have inadvertently revealed an enormous violation of Utah governmental transparency laws.

After the Davis County School Board refused to let LGBT parents add their grievance over a book mentioning gay parents being stripped from library shelves onto their meeting agenda, Davis County School District spokesman Chris Williams fielded questions from the parents in the hallway outside the board meeting.

The decision to remove the book from school library shelves was made by a mysterious committee, which is apparently comprised of 7 members, including parents, school staff and district representatives. This committee made the executive decision to remove the book “In Our Mothers’ House” from the shelves of school libraries, and PRIDEinUtah has been told that the school board does not have the authority to override individual decisions made by this committee even if they wanted to.

Davis County School District Spokesman, Chris Williams

Weston Clark, a gay father and former Davis County school teacher questioned Mr. Williams about the committee yesterday. “Who exactly is on this committee?” Clark asked. “I’m sorry, but we won’t be releasing those names,” was Williams reply. The spokesman also refused to provide access to the minutes of the committee meeting, or any other materials which might shed light on exactly how the decision was made. When pushed further, Mr. Williams went as far as to say that the meeting minutes were not even subject to Utah’s GRAMA laws, and while the public is welcome to submit a GRAMA request for the meeting minutes, the district may refuse to recognize or respond to it. He also added that couldn’t say who in the school district provides any oversight of the committee.

In other words, this mysterious committee which is not comprised of elected officials, has the ability to make binding decisions on the school district without ANY form of public oversight whatsoever.

Utah’s Open and Public Meetings Act states very clearly that all meetings where official action will be taken must be posted publicly at least 24 prior to ensure that the public has full opportunity to be heard and to participate in government. In addition, official minutes must be taken which the date, time, and place of the meeting; the names of members present and absent, the substance of matters discussed or decided, a record of votes, the name of each person who provided testimony and the substance in brief of their testimony; and any other information that any member requests be entered in the minutes or recording.

But it seems that the Davis County School District is above such laws.

Whatever side of the issue you are on, regarding the banning of a book that mentions gay parents, the idea that Davis County School District has created it’s very own shadow government should be frightening. The entire idea behind American government is that it is the public who is ultimately in control – able to supervise, monitor, and observe all proceedings without fear of decisions being made behind our backs.

Category: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Tags: banned, book, chris williams, committee, davis county, Gay, government, grama, lgbt, libraries, library, meetings, open, open records, parents, school district, secret, shadow, spokesman, utah

Posted By Eric Ethington (Author) on June 10, 2012

Needless to say, I was shocked this morning when I opened the paper and saw an article titled “Studies Challenge Widely Held Assumptions About Same Sex Parenting.” The shock shifted to outrage as I actually looked at the study myself and found it glaring with major flaws and bias.

Every major and credible study performed in the last 20 years has proven time and again, through clinical research, solid data, and un-biased conclusions that the children of same-sex parents are just as likely to be normal, happy adults as the children of opposite-sex couples. They’re no more or less likely to use drugs, no more or less likely to graduate from high school / attend college, and perhaps most interestingly: no more or less likely to be gay themselves.

So why would one single research study fly in the face of every other study that has been performed? Simple: it doesn’t. The erroneous conclusions drawn by a biased researcher in no way accurately reflect the data obtained.

The study performed by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas bases its sample on children who identify themselves as having a parent who has had a romantic relationship with a member of the same sex, then compares them with children of opposite-sex couples who have raised the child together. There is absolutely zero consideration given to the length of time the romantic relationship lasted, whether or not the child was raised by a same sex couple or by a single parent, and most notably: no consideration as to other factors in the child’s life such as family drug abuse, stability of structure, step-parents or divorce.

Let me reiterate that to make sure it’s clear: The study compares the children of a parent or parents who have had a same-sex relationship, without factoring in whether that relationship was long term, if the family went through long-term abuse, or if the child was raised by a single parent. That sample is then compared to children who are raised in a (straight) two-parent home with a long-term relationship and deemed as “comparable families.”

To compare such a limited sample to long-term committed relationships and call it apples to apples isn’t merely irresponsible, it moves into the realm of negligent and dangerous as anti-gay attack groups will seize upon the research, ignore its flaws, and use it as a weapon against families with same sex parents who are simply trying to live their lives.

However, it’s possible that such an outcome was actually the intent of the study’s author, Mark Regnerus. Any research study, to be considered valid, must be performed free of assumptions or personal bias.. otherwise the results of such a study can become quickly influenced or altered to match what the researcher wants it to conclude. Mr. Regnerus has a long sad history of anti-gay preachings, including an OpEd in the NY Times, attacks on a Pew Study, and speeches at Bryan College (2nd article here), all showing this man’s heavy anti-gay leanings and immediately revealing that his so-called “study” shows nothing more than what he had predetermined the results would be. (Thanks to The New Civil Rights Movement for the links)

By contrast, all credible research over the past 20 years has shown conclusively that children of same-sex couples perform at the same rates as children of opposite-sex couples. Strong, unchallengeable research which compares children of single parents to children of other single parents, long-term couples to long-term couples, and comparable home lives.

Science is, by nature, unbiased, honest, and fact-driven. To call Regnerus’ work “science” is just laughable – and shame on the Deseret News for treating it as such and promoting the results without giving any thought to the many many flaws the study is rank with.

If you’re interested, Box Turtle Bulletin has a copy of the full study, as well as a much more comprehensive breakdown of the other mistakes, errors and flaws. I highly recommend reading it. You can see it here.

Category: Gay Marriage, Local In Utah, National/International | 1 Comment »
Tags: children, deseret news, Gay, lgbt, Mark Regnerus, parents, paul mero, PROOF, research, study, sutherland institute, university of texas, utah

Posted By Eric Ethington (Author) on April 28, 2012

In the past 3 days, I’ve had no less than 4 conservatives try to persuade me that the only way to reduce the national deficit is by spending and tax cuts. It was less than 15 years ago that we had a balanced budget, is that really the way it came about? Nope.

The last time the United States had  a balanced budget (and a surplus), was under President Bill Clinton in the 90′s. I’m getting a little tired of hearing “tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts” over and over, so I wanted to revisit how that balance and surplus came to be.

Most people would agree that the beginning of the booming Clinton economy began with the budget of 1993. This groundbreaking legislation was passed solely with Democrat votes, and consisted of roughly half spending cuts matched with half tax increases on the top 1% of the wealthy mixed with tax cuts on lower-income Americans. Republicans at the time argued ferociously and vigorously that the tax increases on the top 1% would lead to less jobs being created and an economic downward spiral (remarkably similar rhetoric to the conservative arguments today).  However, the end result was not a huge deficit increase as the GOP predicted, but rather a 90% deficit reduction and a thriving economy. In other words, it worked. That 1993 budget, matched with additional legislation, reduced taxes on middle class parents with children, foster children, and those who were paying for higher education, resulting in America enjoying its first real budget surplus in decades.

Keep in mind too, that this was a full 4 years prior to the 1997 passage of the “Balanced Budget Act.”

It’s a  lie that liberals want to see higher tax rates across the board, rather, liberals push for finding that balance where the burden is shifted towards proportionate equality. Taxes in the United States on the wealthiest are currently lower than at any time since the 1970′s, yet we still hear a constant Fox-fueled stream of rhetoric flowing from conservative pundits saying, “if only we could get those taxes even lower, then everything would be ok.” It’s the unfortunate truth that this over-simplified view has so permeated its way through the elected conservative body that it has begun to sound rational in the public dialogue. It’s not.

If we had maintained the same fiscal discipline and restraints enacted during the Clinton Administration (many of which had strong bipartisan support) during the tenure of George W Bush, then next year in 2013 we as a nation would be celebrating our first time completely out of debt since 1832. Unfortunately, the conservative-dominated congress and White House of the early 2000′s immediately focused on eliminating the smart-government policies that had preceded it, resulting in higher taxes on low and middle-income families, spending cuts, and tax breaks for the wealthiest 1%. The balance and harmony of fiscal responsibility which was the legacy of President Clinton was broken in an instant, resulting in the great recession which we are only now starting to pull out of.

Unfortunately, with the current political climate of hyper-partisanship and hyperbole, a bipartisan and fiscally sound budget is unlikely to be passed any time soon. The Right’s spending cuts matched equally with the Left’s revenue policies, it’s the only template America has actually seen in the past century which led towards a true balanced budget.

We as voting citizens have the obligation to see through the hazy cloud of punditry and false rhetoric to remember our own history. Stop theorizing and trying to reinvent the wheel, follow the existing templates and guides which have yielded proven economic success.

Category: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Tags: balanced budget, clinton, cuts, deficit, democrat, republican, spending, surplus, tax cuts, tax increase, taxes, utah