Imagine my shock as I return home from the pharmacy to find MRW in tears in the bedroom. Fearing the worst, and knowing that just hours prior we had returned from the ER to have emergency IV fluids infused into her system, I could only assume the worst.

“Whats wrong?” I quickly ask. “It’s this video” she replies.

“A video?” I reply, assuming that this is clearly a cat video gone terribly wrong.

“Yes, have you been following this New Zealand thing?”

Earlier in the day, and as many of you now know, the country of New Zealand passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage. MRW, while scrolling through her Facebook feed, found the following speech from New Zealand Representative Maurice Williamson:

Obviously this is a somewhat cheeky response to what I presume has been a politically touchy subject in the country over the years (much like it has been in other industrialized nations). But it raises many of the same arguments we have heard before in a refreshingly new light.

Not tied down by the political conventions of our own nation, Williamson is able to say to us what many gay-marriage advocates in the United States have been saying for years: gay marriage does not compromise traditional marriage, more youth would be adopted, and that the bullying tactics must stop. The final, and perhaps more important point, is that all the law would do is allow two people who love each other to be married – the sun will rise and the world will go on. In the end, be ye not afraid.

MRW, seeing this, clicked on a second video about the debate, this time coming from Representative John Banks from the ACT party…The ACT party, by the way, has policies regarding individual freedom, limited government, reducing government debt, increased defense spending, increased privatization, and reducing business regulations (sound familiar?). Banks took a far more serious tone:

Banks words hit home for MRW. In particular she reflected on not only her LGBT friends, but also our own legal, heterosexual marriage. MRW received many raised eyebrows for choosing to love and marry a non-Mormon. Yes, in our own special and unique way, we had the smallest of tastes into the lives of what what loving LGBT couples live with every day. MRW constantly had to remind people of two things: first, that she should be free to love whomever she pleased, and, second, that her marriage to me in no way harmed their marriages.

“Whats the point in the Lord giving us free agency if man just takes it away?” she asked rhetorically.

As I said before, MRW had been in the emergency room the night before. At two specific points in the night the doctor on call asked for my opinion as to how to move forward - two opinions that would have been two decisions if  MRW had been incapacitated, that I had the legal right to make. Two opinions I feel I had no more or less of a right to make as a partner in a committed, loving, gay relationship. Nothing makes my union and my love more or less real…aside from the fact that the law gives me certain perks that have been codified into law.

“This bill wont have any impact on your marriage, but it mean a great deal for me and my relationship.” Banks said as he read a text from a constituent. If gay marriage were to pass tomorrow, my marriage would be as strong as the day before, my rights would not be infringed, religious institutions would be under no requirement to perform gay weddings, and a class of citizens will be afforded equal rights under the law.

Equal rights – not special rights or rights of protection, but equal rights under the law.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in Section 1 “… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In short, Equality MUST exist under our system – and, indeed, is a requirement for a just and free society.

“Will New Zealanders have more freedoms as a result of this bill?” Banks would ask “Yes.” Banks goes on: “Will freedom of religion be preserved? Yes. Will anyone’s freedoms be taken away by this bill? No. Would the God that I believe in think any less of me for voting for this bill? No. That’s why I support this legislation.”

The day will come when gay marriage is accepted across the land – not because a particular party supports it, but because a particular generation supports it. MRW and I are far younger than the average policy maker, and the stories of moral decay fall on deaf ears when we see healthy and happy homosexual couples building families and contributing to society…heck, it is almost as if they are real people too.

First off, let me just say that it is great to be writing here on Blue again. As you may have noticed, it has been quiet here for the past few months – the reason being that I was busy over at Utah Political Capitol providing bill analysis and commentary. Now that things have settled down post-legislative session, I will be splitting my time between Blue and UPC depending on the topic at hand. That being said, it is good to be back!

To kick things off, I just wanted to tell you all a short story about MRW as I am often asked about her and her health.

A few weeks ago, MRW had a procedure to look at her, ahem, shall we say, lady-bits. Over the past year, we have started to kick around the idea of possibly having kids. First, however, we wanted to make sure she is in good enough health to do so.

To that end, MRW’s doctor ordered what could easily be considered a rather unpleasant test that does not quite reach the level of actually being knocked out in order to be performed…though I am certainly not versed in that area and pain associated therein, judging by size of the needles and how many that went into numbing the area, I would say it is on par with a bad tooth pull, but without laughing gas, or IV medicine that makes you loopy.

What makes this story interesting is that MRW, knowing that the procedure would be unpleasant, called in a little extra support, opting to crush not only my hand, but the hand of another…and man, did she crush them!

MRW’s person of choice? None other than former lawmaker (and Direct Entry-Midwife/Doula), Holly Richardson – you know, from Holly on the Hill.

Over the past few years, Holly has become a friend of our family, so it was not at all odd to have her in the room soothing MRW as the hysteroscopy was under way (hysteroscopy is medical jargon for looking at lady-bits with a scope – kind of like an endoscopy) …what was a little bizarre was, rather than talking about breathing techniques or pain management (okay, maybe there was a little encouragement for MRW to not hold her breath), all three of us were talking about the antics taking place during the first few weeks of the session – all while MRW was having said procedure. No doubt a first for the office during such a procedure.

In the end, the procedure led to a few more tests and, ultimately a surgery where MRW did have to be knocked out. But MRW and I mostly want to thank Holly for being there – and to remind people that, just because someone has (very) different political ideology from your own, it does not mean that they are bad people  (let’s not forget, “MRW” stands for “My Republican Wife”). With the 2013 legislative session now in the rear view window, we all need to be reminded of that fact.

**Note: This post originally appeared on UtahPoliticalCapitol.com

When a government decides to legally protect a group of people, it is making a formalized statement of two things: that a group has been unfairly discriminated against in the past (whether intentional or not), and that we as a society should work together to prevent active or passive discrimination in the future.

Currently, in the state of Utah, we protect against discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, ancestry, and/or national origin. Many within civil society argue for additional groups to be added to this list – but one group that few could disagree on are the disabled.

It is for this reason that we support Senator Pat Jones (D – Salt Lake City, District 4) in her effort to formally add the mentally and physically disabled to the list of those who should be legally protected from discrimination.

SB 108 – Civil Rights Amendments Relating to Persons with a Disability follows in the footsteps of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) by recognizing that, historically speaking, we as a state and nation have actively and passively discriminated against these individuals for no other reason than they are disabled. This may be as malicious as denying someone a job because they are in a wheel chair or as passive as serving an able bodied person first over a disabled individual in a restaurant or bar.

“But wait,” you might say, “doesn’t the ADA already protect those with disabilities from discrimination?” Well, the short answer is that yes, it does. But by adopting the provision into Utah law as well, we as a state and a citizenry are sending a clear message that we respect those who are disabled and that our policy will be to prosecute those who still choose to engage in the discrimination of those with disabilities. Inversely, if this bill were to fail, what message would we be sending to the citizens of this state and of the nation? Making our state as inclusive as possible is just good sense, both in terms of our image around the world as well as the message we send to companies who may be considering moving into Utah.

In many ways, the ADA has already done the leg work when it comes to the capital changes that need to take place if the bill were to pass – in the 23 years since the ADA passed, buildings have become more accessible, company hiring policies have changed, and a generational shift has taken place in regards to attitudes. But this should not mean that SB 108 is a waste of time. Not only is the symbolism important, but so too is the state’s ability do directly respond to any sort of violation related to discrimination towards those with disabilities. After all, the federal government may or may not choose to act on a particular violation, but by adding an extra level of protection (this time at the state level), we are better able to serve those members of our community who have been disadvantaged over the years.

To contact Sen. Jones, Click Here or call 801-278-7667

Impact on Average Utahn:

High Impact   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0   No Impact

—

Need:

Necessary   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0  Unnecessary

—

Overall Ranking:

Great Bill  5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0 . -1 . -2 . -3 . -4 . -5  Poor Bill

**Note – this article originally published at UtahPoliticalCapitol.com

If one were to use a kind word to describe legislative ethics, it would be “wanting;” if one were to use an unkind word, one might use the word “farce.” Either way, it can be said that current ethics laws may not be up to the standards that citizens desire. There are many reasons for this systemic issue, but today we are going to focus on one particular aspect.

First, some background.

If one were to file a complaint against an individual legislator, one must first have some sort of evidence of wrongdoing. For example, evidence of lobbying on the side, pressuring other government entities, misusing their title, giving out confidential state information, or failing to disclose a conflict of interest would all be grounds for an ethics violation to be filed. The complaint would be filed with the chair of the Independent Legislative Ethics Commission and the chair would then decide if there is grounds for an investigation. This panel of former judges and former lawmakers would then hear the complaint and, if they felt there were sufficient grounds to proceed, move it on to the Senate and House Ethics Committee. These respective committees would then decide the final fate of the legislator in question.

As you can see, the process is a bit complex, and currently there are a number of additional hurdles that Senator Luz Robles (D – Salt Lake City, District 1) wishes to eliminate.

SJR 4 – Joint Resolution on Ethics Complaint Procedures does three basic things. First, it eliminates the current ban on any ethics complaint 60 days prior to an election; second, it eliminates the current gag order to disclose if a complaint has even been filed; and third, it removes the provision that automatically dismisses  a complaint if someone does disclose that a complaint has been filed in.

Undoubtedly, these changes will be met with harsh opposition. One could easily argue that the ethics complaint procedure is purposefully convoluted because legislators are not keen on getting caught violating ethics laws – the more hoops are in the way, the more likely all but the most severe and obvious violations fly under the public’s radar. Opponents may further complain that eliminating the provision that a complaint can’t be filed two months prior to an election would open up the Independent Commission to campaign electioneering.

However, these complaints miss an important fact: the public needs to be informed. Automatic dismissals and gag orders on even the existence of a complaint fly counter to our regular justice system and seem illogical to the layman. If a complaint has been filed, the public should know. If complaints are banned 60 days prior to an election, we must ask how much the Legislature trusts the public to weed out fact from fiction, and electioneering from legitimate complaint. If the public trusts that the Independent Commission will execute its job properly, there should be no concern about who is accused and when – if a lawmaker is found not guilty, the public should follow.

Robles is attempting to open up a very close (and very distrusted) portion of our legislative process. The reach of these changes may be limited, but the effect it has on the public’s psyche is immeasurable.

Impact on the Average Utahn:

High Impact   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0   No Impact

—

Need:

Necessary   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0  Unnecessary

—

Overall Ranking:

Great Bill  5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0 . -1 . -2 . -3 . -4 . -5  Poor Bill

Upon first blush, Senator Daniel Thatcher’s (R – West Valley City, District 12) SB 128 – Financial Transparency in Education the public’s need for transparency in government, but also a strong public education system, however we must dive deeper.

Thatcher’s bill, if it were to pass, would require that school districts and charter schools classify transactions the same way that all other government agencies report their transactions, however there are some problems with his plan. It is not that Thatcher is malicious in his bill, just over simplifying the situation.

To read my complete article, click here to head over to Utah Political Capitol.

Impact on Average Utahn:

High Impact   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0   No Impact

—

Need:

Necessary   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0  Unnecessary

—

Overall Ranking:

Great Bill  5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0 . -1 . -2 . -3 . -4 . -5  Poor Bill

Representative Lynn Hemingway (D – Salt Lake City, District 40) has launched the opening immigration debate salvo with HJR 1 – Joint Resolution Expressing Support for the Utah Compact. To put it simply, HJR 1 would formally declare that the Utah State Legislature supports the Utah Compact and the principals within it and, at least in theory, set the general policy of the Utah State Legislature when approaching immigration issues. This is a fantastic bill that deserves your attention!

To read my complete analysis, head on over to Utah Political Capitol by clicking here.

Impact on Average Utahn:

High Impact   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0   No Impact

—

Need:

Necessary   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0  Unnecessary

—

Overall Ranking:

Great Bill  5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0 . -1 . -2 . -3 . -4 . -5  Poor Bill

Due to technological advances, Utah’s laws have not been able to keep up with sexual predators and their attempts to seduce minors. Currently, it is only illegal to seduce a minor over the internet if it is done via computer or telephone and it is not technically illegal to attempt to solicit a minor through these types of communications, only to actually solicit a minor through these types of electronic communications. It is for this reason that Representative R. Curt Webb (R – Logan, District 5) is proposing HB 31 – Enticing a Minor Amendments.

The bill is a simple one. First it expands the definition of what a “text message” is to include any type of electronic device (not just cell phones or computers). Of course, one would be hard pressed to come up with any other sort of broad technological device that would fit this mold, but, none the less, Webb is preparing for the future. The second, and more interesting part, is that Webb is making it a crime to attempt to solicit a minor. Though the courts would undoubtedly use a “reasonable” standard to deduce what attempted solicitation actually is, lawmakers must be careful when using such a term, if only because it could inadvertent place an innocent person in some hot water. Is this probable? No. But is it possible? Yes. Again, I trust the courts to make a proper decision, but things can get squishy when we use such terms. The third part of the bill gives teeth to these new standards. Various levels of felonies are attached to these attempted violations through new technological means, and these penalties appear to be stiff, but fair.

These simple changes to our state law would immediately benefit our youth as its expansion of powers would give law enforcement more power to convict those who wish to harm our children. Furthermore, the bill plans ahead for any sort of new technology that may be coming down the pipe that does not neatly fit into the mold of “computer” or “cell phone” (Google Google’s perhaps?). By enacting this legislation, we are ensuring that our youth will be better protected, and that those who wish to commit such terrible crimes will have an assured punishment.

To contact Rep. Ray, Click Here or call 435-753-0215

Impact on Average Utahn:

High Impact   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0   No Impact

—

Need:

Necessary   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0  Unnecessary

—

Overall Ranking:

Great Bill  5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0 . -1 . -2 . -3 . -4 . -5  Poor Bill

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2013 Bills to Watch Series, Click Here

Sadly, we live in a world where the threat of gun violence is all too real. From mass shootings to a drunken brawl, these deadly weapons have become engraved into our culture. Because of this cultural attitude towards guns, there becomes a sort of feedback loop wherein people first feel threatened by guns, go out and purchase their own to protect themselves from said guns, only to scare another individual to do the same.

This post, however, is not about having more or less guns on the street, what it is about is trying to reduce the real (or perceived) threat that guns present in our state. More specifically, this post is about how Representative Paul Ray (R – Clearfiled, District 13) is not helping the situation.

Representative Ray is introducing HB 268 – Disorderly Conduct Amendments this session much to the chagrin of those who are fearful of weapons in general and guns in particular. You see, HB 258 would allow people to openly walk around in public with a gun (or other dangerous weapon) in clear view without violation of the law.

First, we should ask ourselves why Ray wishes to propose such a law in this climate. Presumably he is coming from the mindset that states “people won’t go on mass shooting sprees if they know someone has a gun and could stop it.” Why else would he propose such a law? Clearly, he is not considering the fact that the mere presence of a gun causes unease among the general public – this is demonstrated by the fact that the bill outright says “The otherwise lawful possession of a dangerous weapon…does not constitute a hazardous or physically offensive condition, threatening behavior, or cause for public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm…”

Ray is clearly under the impression that we live in the wild west and that the only way to protect ourselves is to be packing heat. Ray, it appears wishes to deal with the problem of gun violence by putting more people on edge – calling these people on edge sissies, and overall not deal with the problem. This mindset is irresponsible and, frankly, uncivilized. This bill would do nothing to prevent mass shootings, nor would it do anything to prevent the enraged bar fight from getting out of hand – what it does do is give the impression that we fear our neighbor.

Think, too, about the impact this law would have to those visiting our state. Do we really want people reporting back that Utah is so crazy and violent that people feel the need to openly walk around with a gun or knife strapped to their bodies?

We as a society should be better than this, we should fear those who openly walk around with dangerous weapons because, if this bill were to pass, it would speak to how we have accepted violence as the norm and that the only solution to the problem is more intimidation. Let us instead continue to focus our efforts on keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals and giving the individuals who are a threat to society the treatment they need.

To contact Rep. Ray, Click Here or call 801-725-2719

Impact on Average Utahn:

High Impact   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0   No Impact

—

Need:

Necessary   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0  Unnecessary

—

Overall Ranking:

Great Bill  5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0 . -1 . -2 . -3 . -4 . -5  Poor Bill

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2013 Bills to Watch Series, Click Here

Hey ya’ll – Hop on over to Utah Political Capitol to hear both myself and Eric Ethington discuss a few gun bills, education bills, and changes in petitioning the government.

Lets face it, sex education in the state of Utah is a bit of a joke. The longstanding push for abstinence only denies the fact that teenagers have sexual urges and will act on them, whereas proper sex education (that is sex education that acknowledges that people will have sex outside of marriage) gives teens the tools they need to make a good, and safe, decision. After all, teens are far from experts when it comes to the mechanics of sex, let alone the very real emotional, health, and potential parental responsibilities that are associated with sexual intercourse.

Ideally, sex education should come from parents, however to say this is to ignore the fact that many parents are too uncomfortable to discuss the topic. In response to this, as a community, we have asked the schools to pick up the responsibility. The problem is, as stated above, as a society we have also said that we only want one type of sex education to be taught. So how do we start to bridge this gap? Well, Senator Stuart Reid (R – Ogden, District 18) is attempting to start filling in the gaps with SB 39 – Parental Responsibility for Sex Education Training.

The bill instructs the State Board of Education to create a sex ed training program for parents so that they can discuss sexual health with their kids; the idea, presumably, being that parents would be more comfortable bringing up “the talk” if they had an idea about how to address the issue in the first place. But there is a catch: the materials produced must comply with current standards for sex education in the schools (i.e. no instruction about the intricacies of intercourse or encouraging the use of contraceptives).

Will this bill help parents and teens create a better environment to discuss sex? Yes. But the problem is the state, by way of the standards set forth in how we teach sexual education in general are still backwards. Hopefully, by starting the conversation, teens will feel free to ask more detailed questions that the parents, hopefully, will feel more free to answer. Perhaps, over time, this will push the sex education standards to one that is more realistic. Sen. Reid is taking a step in the right direction with this bill, but we still have a long way to go.

To contact Sen. Reid, Click Here or call 801-337-4182

Impact on Average Utahn:

High Impact   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0   No Impact

—

Need:

Necessary   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0  Unnecessary

—

Overall Ranking:

Great Bill  5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0 . -1 . -2 . -3 . -4 . -5  Poor Bill

—

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2013 Bills to Watch Series, Click Here