Between Family and Beliefs

I have an LDS friend here in Cincinnati who is very outspoken about his beliefs regarding gay marriage. He sends out mass emails on the subject, attends rallies that support the traditional family structure, and writes blogs about the subject matter. He was even interviewed at one of the rallies he attended, and he told the journalist that he had a gay brother but he was still fighting against gay marriage. The gay brother found out about the interview, got mad, and, needless to say, stopped talking to my friend.

Meanwhile, I myself find myself occasionally getting into arguments with my parents. For example, they donate considerable amounts of money to a conservative Christian group that refuses to hire Mormons because they don't fit the group's definition of Christian. I should have probably just brought up that fact and then let it go (although even bringing it up made my mother raving mad). But I was a bit surprised that my parents defended this bigoted group, so I kept arguing with my mother about it.

I think many of us are involved in things that can cause conflict within the family. Where do we draw the line on our involvement? Do we go all-out and get into full-blown arguments and attend rallies that directly attack our family members? In other words, do we put our causes, often good causes, and place them ahead of our family relationships? If we want to have strong family relationships, we need to make those relationships a priority.

My mom's family sets a good example. Two of her siblings are not active in the LDS church. One is what I'd call a fundamentalist Christian (not sure of the denomination). The other went inactive--although I hear he's attending church now. Despite the differences in belief, the family is still close-knit. It hasn't torn the family apart like it could have. And that, I believe, is a good thing. Family is, after all, more important than causes.

TV update

"Justified" is back and should be showing up on Hulu shortly. I consider it the best show on TV. Very smart. And a new show, "Chicago Code," is looking pretty decent. Cop show about getting rid of government corruption. You can check out reviews on www.metacritic.com, one of my new favorite websites.

Chuck's gone downhill ever since Chuck gained physical superpowers. Not sure if I'll continue watching. White Collar is decent.
The Cape is a disappointment, as is No Ordinary Family.
Rubicon was canceled (I still highly recommend the slow-pace thriller).

We had a couple of years of great TV, and now it feels like it's gone downhill again. Guess I'll go back to watching my X-Files DVDs again.

Help me out--what else is good out there? Doesn't necessarily need to be current.

Mormon for President, 2012

If you haven't heard, Romney's not the only Mormon with aspirations for the Presidency in 2012. Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and Ambassador to China (who also happens to have exquisite tastes in music--in other words, a progressive rock fan) also apparently has aspirations for 2012. Now I happen to think that it's probably just a test run for 2016, and I don't think a moderate Republican has much of a chance of winning the primaries in 2012 (although I would argue that a moderate Republican is the only one that would be able to beat Obama).

Anyway, that brings me to a wonderful little graph that details Republican contenders for 2012. Take a look.



The good news is, Romney and Huntsman are both sane. The bad news--only three of the 13 contenders are sane, and there's doubt as to whether the majority of people voting in the Republican primary will vote for a sane candidate. And then there's the problem of religious bigotry in the South, which would probably seriously hurt two of the three sane candidates. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.