Since the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same sex marriage yesterday, I have seen a number of people make an argument that has been accumulating disciples during the last few years. A growing number argue that marriage should be left to religion, and that the government should “get out of the marriage business.”

While this view may sound reasonable and is a seductive sounding solution, I believe it is overly simplified, contrary to history and good government, and ultimately a pernicious proposal.

I have waited to comment on the situation down in Texas where the Texas government has removed over 400 children from their parents with allegations of abuse until there was more information available.

The situation distresses me for a number of reasons.

It wouldn’t be appropriate to go into details here on my blog, but a number of years ago I was involved in a brief legal struggle over some abused children. Having reported abuse to child protection services, I quickly discovered that unless there is physical evidence of abuse (bruises, dislocated or broken bones, etc.), the chances of getting abused children removed from their parents into the safety of state care are practically nil.

It is extremely frustrating and heartbreaking to talk to an abused child who has trusted you and to have to tell them that there is nothing you can do because they haven’t been hurt badly enough yet to deserve protection from the government’s Child Protection Services.

At the same time, through this process I did learn that there are very strong legal protections for parental rights in the United States, and that is something that I strongly support.

I have written about this before, but wanted to cover some of the same topics in the context of the issue in Utah of distributing “In God We Trust” posters to be displayed in the public school classrooms.

When those with more liberal views than I say that the nation as the founders established it was not a Christian Nation, they are superficially correct. However, the nation was arguably founded explicitly as a Theistic Nation, a fact which they often ignore or deny. And Christianity had an undeniable influence on the formation of the United States and its government even if it was not explicitly Christian. While there was to be no established religious sect or creed, the government and nation were expected to officially recognize the authority of a vague, generic Supreme Creator as the source and judge of their laws and actions and to recognize the necessity of His approbation of their collective actions.

On May 26th, the prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and his two counselors sent a letter to be read in all of the LDS congregations in the United States urging members to contact their Senators to support proposed amendments to the Constitution that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman to prevent the establishment of legal, homosexual marriage in the United States.

Since the release of this letter of counsel to the members, I have heard of several critics of the church, internal and external, who try to discredit the Church’s position against homosexual marriage as hypocritical in light of the Church’s own struggle against the United States government’s prohibition of the former LDS practice of Polygamy in the late 19th century.

These critics try to draw a parallel between the church’s fight to keep the government from prohibiting its religious practice of plural marriage and the modern fight by homosexuals to prevent the government from prohibiting same-sex marriage. “How can the church support government prohibition of same-sex marriage,” they ask, “when the church itself fought to prevent the government from interfering with their right to marriage in the 19th century?”

This criticism reveals a very superficial understanding of history and the church’s 19th century position in regard to congressional proscription of polygamy. Like the common comparison of the homosexual movement to the civil-rights movement, it is an effective rhetorical device with emotional appeal, but has little basis in reality. It is effective because it is superficially compelling and easily expressed in only a few words while an effective refutation of it requires a lengthy explanation.

In debates I have participated in over same-sex marriage, its proponents have often asserted that the practice would have negligible societal effect. They maintain that after the standardization of gay marriage everything will continue as it has. Such an assertion, it seems to me, requires an unbelievable degree of willful self-delusion or dishonesty.

The Weekly Standard has a sobering article that gives us a thorough preview of the upcoming train-wreck:

Following up on my previous post, be sure to read Popular Mechanics’ excellent article: Debunking Katrina Myths .

MYTH: “The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history.”—Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005

REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest—and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history

Check out the first look evaluation of the Congressional Report On Hurricane Katrina by the Popular Mechanics Science Blog.

We’ve given the report an initial read and found it riddled with poor logic, internal contradictions and exaggerations…

Microsoft has apparently shut down the blog of a Chinese journalist named Zhao Jing (aka Michael Anti) that was hosted on its MSN Spaces blog service because of subject matter critical of the authoritarian Chinese government. Former TV reporter Rebecca MacKinnon has posted the details on her blog. Included with her analysis is this fascinating insight:

Considering all of the recent talk about the Patriot Act, I thought I resurrect a slightly modified version of an article I wrote some time ago, which I think helps explain my own position on the Patriot Act.

Take out a $20 bill and take a good look at the picture of President Andrew Jackson on the obverse side. Let’s review a little of the history of this controversial president, and then I’ll tell you what it can teach us about how to remedy our bloated and burdensome government.