The current crisis facing General Motors, is nearly a mirror image of the situation facing the United States of America. GM was founded in 1908 and has grown to be the worlds largest auto maker employing roughly 266,000 employees. Originally founded as a car company, whose sole purpose was to manufacture automobiles, GM recently has branched off into other ventures.
The government of the United States of America was founded in 1776 and its Constitution ratified in 1787. For awhile it led the world in promoting individual liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Originally founded as a protector of individual rights and administrator of national defense of its sovereign states, the government of the USA has branched off into other ventures.
GM employees formed the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) in 1935 due in part to a philosophical difference with the management of GM. Namely, management viewed the company as a means to produce cars to make money. The UAW saw the company as a means to provide a job. Indeed, the UAW formed the Job Bank program in 1984 which currently pays 12,000 UAW members to do nothing, seriously, nothing at all.
The people of the United States of America began to change the nature of their government due to a philosophical difference with the founders of the Constitution. Namely, the founders viewed the Constitution as a means to protect individual liberty, provide the common defense of the states, and limit oppressive government. The people disregarded the constitution (especially in 1913), and saw the government as a means to provide for not only the common defense, but also due the following: (1) provide and maintain full employment for all citizens, (2) secure agricultural prosperity, (3) develop a national housing program, (4) underwrite hundreds of billions of dollars in private loans and private insurance programs, (5) administer a national welfare program, (6) administer a national Medicare and Medicaid program, (7) administer a social security program, (8) allocate billions of dollars for educating the young, (8) administer a network of health agencies, (9) administer an environmental protection program for the entire nation, (10) administer 40% of the nations land area and its resources, (11) regulate all major industries such as steel, automobile manufacturing, coal mining, oil production, metal mining, and so forth, (12) supervise all radio and television broadcasting, (13) monitor the manufacturing and distribution of food and drugs, (14) create federal programs on a regional basis to replace the powers and activities originally reserved to the sovereign states.
Comedian Argus Hamilton recently made the following joke: "The United Auto Workers said Saturday they won't make any concessions on wages or benefits to help the Big Three [auto makers]. First things first. Investors are just starting to realize that General Motors is a health care provider that makes cars on the side."
The people of the United States recently perpetuated the following joke: the idea that electing either a Democrat or a Republican to congress or the executive branch will provide any real change. Unfortunately, the people are not realizing that the government of the United States is infiltrating every aspect of their lives and is throwing the concepts of individual liberty, national defense, and limited government into an abyss.
 Skousen, W. Cleon. "The Making of America". p.508-9
Opposition groups have begun to target the leadership of the Church. Read about the protests and see videos of the anti-traditional family protesters in front of the L.A. Temple here.
Protesters are also beginning to organize in front of the Salt Lake Temple. Read about that here.
This quote from President Benson seems applicable:
"Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had 'never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life.'
"This is hard doctrine, but it is particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ. . . . Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. . . . This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.
"Resistance to abrtion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.... Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself. Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, 'summer is nigh.' Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat."--- Elder Neal A. Maxwell
There is still a little hope in the state of California.
Below is an article that was referred to me. In a previous article I wrote here, I discussed many of the same points, but the articulation of this individual surpasses my articulation.
The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.
This article was originally posted here.
Election Day is Tuesday. Remember to vote. I have received many emails from people regarding my stance on Proposition 8. Most have been in disagreement with me. Here is my final plea and argument on the matter before the election. It is a summary of the discussions I have had with people over the last few days.
The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) believe that marriage is an institution ordained by God. The marriage ceremony was governed by religious traditions. In addition, practically every culture on earth associates marriage with their religious beliefs. Even if you are an atheist, you cannot deny the historical fact that marriage and religion are inseparable in nearly all cultures.Here is a brief Christian history of marriage via scripture and modern prophets:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)
"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:3)
"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2)
"Marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made." (Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17)
"God instituted marriage in the beginning. He made man in his own image and likeness, male and female, and in their creation it was designed that they should be united together in sacred bonds of marriage, and one is not perfect without the other." 
If you believe in the words of the Prophet Joseph F. Smith, then you believe that God himself instituted marriage and is without question a religious ordinance. Since marriage and religion are inseparable whether by fact (from the revealed word) or by historical association, let us look anew at D&C 134:4.
We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
We DO NOT believe that human law has the right to interfere in prescribing religious marriage ceremonies. We DO NOT believe that human law has the right to dictate who should be married. We DO NOT believe human law has the right to assume supreme authority on the definition of marriage. It is a religious ceremony, a religious union, and a religious sacrament. The government has no business involving itself whatsoever in a religious ceremony. It is obvious from scripture and latter-day prophets that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Therefore two people of the same gender do not have the right to marry, and the government cannot intervene to dictate otherwise. The only reason government involves itself in any way in the religious institution of marriage is for issues regarding divorce, i.e. the division of property, custody of children, etc.
Since the government cannot dictate to religious organizations who can be married, and marriage in religious organizations is between a man and a woman, the only unions to which a government can ever involve itself in with regard to marital dissolution, are those between a man and a woman.Since the government has clearly overstepped its bounds by involving itself with religious ceremonies and religious definitions, I have the right to voice my opinion to the government that it has intervened where it should not have.
D&C 134:4 is a mandate to all members of the Church to voice their opinion, that the government has intervened in proscribing rules of worship and dictating public devotion with regard to marriage. Marriage is a religious function, and the government has no business defining what marriage is. It does not have that right. Yes on Proposition 8 reaffirms that the government has no business in defining or dictating a historically religious institution.The opponents of traditional marriage have not been tolerant nor open minded regarding the religious nature marriage has for the majority. Instead of seeking equal protection under the law they have sought to force their views upon everyone using government force. Instead of promoting legislation in congress where open debate and discourse can occur, they have used the judicial system much like a tyrant.The Book of Mormon warned of the tyrannical use of the judicial system:
"the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges." (Alma 10:27)
Our system of government must be done with open discourse, debate, and the free exchange of ideas. Under the Constitution, judges are not to legislate or make laws, they are to judge based on the laws the people have chosen. The people choose representatives whose sole purpose is to makes laws according to the will of the people, and judges are to judge based on those laws, and NOT create their own.The Book of Mormon again asserts this principle:
"If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE." (Mosiah 29:29).
These principles are found in our Constitution. The will of the people as expressed in their laws has been overturned in a process that is not Constitutional. As a method of last resort against a tyrannical government, the Founders placed in the Constitution the means that the people could have the final say in their government, and that is through the amendment process.Instead of promoting their ideas through peaceful means, instead of promoting legislation for their cause, instead of discussing the injustice they felt they have incurred, opponents of traditional marriage have sought tyrannical means to overthrow the will of the people. This will only cause further strife and contention in our society. The means sought to enact laws by opponents of traditional marriage is beginning to lay the foundation of the destruction of our Republic.I am voting Yes on Proposition 8 because the government has sought intrusion into religious institutions.
I am voting Yes on Prop 8 because my right to open discourse and debate on this issue has been taken away from me through unconstitutional means. I am voting Yes on Proposition 8 because a Prophet of God has admonished me to preserve a sacred and religious ordinance from the clutches of a tyrannical judicial system. I am voting Yes on 8 because it is the only resort left that I have to tell my government they cannot interfere with my religious beliefs.