Letter to Ordain Women

I have a few questions for your organizations.
Full-time missionary work is a priesthood responsibility and your organization seeks to have women ordained to that priesthood.
What I'm curious about is this. Do you think that latter day saint girls should be expected to serve full time missions like the young men are? If so, do you view an lds girl who doesn't serve a mission the same way you would view an lds boy who does not serve a mission? Do you believe that the mission duration for young women needs to be 24 months like it is for the young men?

 A few minutes later this is what they said.

This organization has many returned missionaries (men and women) who support the cause, and you are welcome to read their profiles and hear for yourself what they have to say!

They completely did not answer my question. Earlier this year I had a chance to ask congressmen Matheson a question about the debt ceiling and the government shutdown and he didn't really answer my question either but he at least addressed the issue. Whereas the Ordain Women organization said basically nothing. At least not yet.

Perhaps they are dodging the question because they don't have a good answer. Perhaps the feel this question highlights the error of their cause. But I think more likely than not they did not answer the question because whoever sits at the computer and answers the emails is not really interested in answering questions. Maybe said person doesn't have discretion to speak for the organization. Which weird because that's exactly what they are assigned to do. The best I can hope for is that someone in the organization will take later take a look at the question.

What I find to be odd is that they seemed to think it was important that they respond to my email quickly, but they didn't seem to think that it was important that they answer my question.

Another possibility is that person who sent that email known that there is a profile on their website that answers my question perfectly and they want me to find the answer for myself through those means.

Theres other things I'd like to ask them but I don't know if they'll bother to answer.

Sochi. I won't be able to attend your wedding because that's when my book club is meeting.

This last week the Whitehouse announced that President Obama and Vice President Biden will not be attending the Olympics in Russia next year because apparently they are to busy.

I don't think this is the real reason.

1. I'm pretty sure he attended the Vancouver Olympics. When the Economy was more rough than it is now.
2. It's not like he forgot that the Olympics were coming up or that he didn't know.
3. The President has a lot of control over his schedule. The whitehouse website has a page that shows the President's schedule. http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/ If you were to track it during the Sochi games and compare his schedule with the time of the Vancouver games (I don't know if the website goes that far back) I would be surprised if there was much of a difference.
4. He especially has that much control for accommodating something that has been scheduled for about 7 years.
5. I've never seen an episode of The West Wing where President Bartlett was on Air Force 1 and not discussing policy.

Not to long ago Russia passed a law preventing the adoption of their children by families from the United States. That itself might not be a crisis, but I think it highlights the fact that our relations with Russia are a little bit rough. Not as bad as they were a few decades ago, but to good either. This is very frightening to me. 

Attending the games certainly isn't a magic wand that would cure our relations, but I think it would be a good gesture.

I don't think boycotting the Olympics is inherently bad but I'm not sure that Russia has hit the ceiling of what can be tolerated. One of the cliches I've heard of the Olympics is that we are supposed to look past certain things. From what I've heard I think boycott efforts for Sochi's Olympics seem to be gaining more traction than the boycotts for Beijing's. The logic doesn't add up in my mind. 

Could the Legalization of Gay Marriage help the GOP?

This past week court rulings legalized same-sex marriage in both New Mexico and Utah. The ruling applied to Utah will almost certainly be appealed.

Support for same-sex marriage has been growing and I don't think the trend is likely to reverse. Will it keep growing to the point where it is generally accepted or will it plateau? I'm not sure. But I would estimate that support is somewhere from 53-54%. People who are in that groups will have one more reason to not vote for many republicans. Very few republicans can win the vote of people who identify themselves as gay.

But what if court rulings lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states then it might take the issue off of the table. Meaning that if Same-Sex Marriage was legal in the United States and there was nothing that a legislative acts could do about it than it may do away with a reason to vote against the GOP. A Republican candidate for President might get about 22% of the gay vote. But the common tendency of courts is to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. If there was a definitive court ruling legalizing gay marriage and it was believed that it wasn't going to go away than perhaps the GOP would do better with those who support the gay rights movement.

Just some thoughts.