I Like Words

Those who know me fairly well know that I like words.  I like to mess with them.  I especially like to take nouns and turn them into verbs and turn verbs into nouns.  I also enjoy conjugating them, which produces some rather interesting new words.  When doing so I try to follow established patterns.  Let me share the process with you.

Begin with the word sing.  In addition to the I sing, you sing, and he, she, or it sings pattern, there are the tenses that come into play.  Therefore, you have the words sing, sang, sung.  Please consider the possibilities for the word hang.  You end up with hing, hang, hung.  Now work backwards with me to I hing, you hing, and he, she or it hings.  It has to work.  Am I missing something here?

Or, take if you would the word sink.  Sink, sank, sunk.  All three are completely legitimate words and when you apply the logic of the progression of those words, you end up with think, thank (not to be confused with the word of the same spelling meaning an expression of appreciation), and thunk. 

Return with me now to the word sing. Today I had the opportunity to fling something away (no, not that).  We have the obvious, I fling, you fling, he, she, or it flings (we fling, you fling, they fling), but what happens when you put that word into a past tense.  The progression goes something like this: fling, flang, flung. 

As a person who had flung something I became a flunger after the fact, but while I was flinging it, I was a flinger (much like a singer).  That of course is in a past perfect tense, but had it been a simple past tense statement I would have been a flanger.  Keep in mind that a singer, once finished singing a song then becomes a sanger or a sunger (past perfect—as in, “he had been a sunger”).

Now, that which I flang or had flung, became flaneged or flunged.  It wasn’t flangt or flungt.  But the object itself should be defined as a flong.  Keep this rule in mind: Fling is to flong as sing is to song.  So, today as I did my morning walk I flang a flong.  Of course, at the time I was flinging a flong.  By the way, Susan walked with me today as she always does, but she seldom if ever flings flongs.  She just is not a flinger.  I don't think she was ever a flanger.  I once thank that she was, but she never has been a flunger.

One person who flings is a flinger, but two or more people are flingers.  And just as a flinger who had flung in the past is a flanger, multiple flingers who have flung in the past are flangers.  One must be careful here to distinguish between possessive and past perfect. A person can have flingers and flangers, but you always have flungered.  And, when asking person about flingering, or more aptly put, flangering in the past, you ask if that person flangered.  For example, “Was that you that flangered last night?” Of course, past perfect would be, “Have you flungered before?”

Now for some final thoughts as I bring this full circle.  Had I accidentally flung the fling onto a person when I flang it (to be clear, there was no recipient of the flang), then that person would have been the flungee.  Of course, at the time it happened that person would be the flingee, but since we are talking about an imperfect past that person was a flangee.

I hope this clears everything up.

9/11 Friday Friends

There is a special bond that develops among friends who have never met.  We are friends in a brotherhood.  Perhaps you could call it a fraternity.  We experience the same thrills and fears.  We feel the same highs from doing the exact same things.  We experience the same sadness over common losses.  Heroics are seldom recognized but occur multiple times on a daily basis. Some of those heroics are small acts of kindness or service while others are life threatening. At times the threats are more than just a threat.

I don't know. It either takes a special kind of stupid or a special kind of devotion to run into a life-threatening situation while others run out.  It's what you do when you swear an oath. 

The oath doesn't say anything about serve and protect.  The oath says enforce and defend.  The oath is all about enforcing the laws and defending the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.  Yet the job is all about serving and protecting the public.  For each arrest that is made a victim somewhere is being served.  For each traffic citation issued, there is a reminder, whether learned or not, that we are a nation of laws and that most of us really do want to live in an orderly society.

I do not know the 60 NYPD and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department (PAPD) officers who lost their lives at the World Trade Center 14 years ago today.  I also do not know the other 71 police officers who have since died from injuries or exposure to toxic fumes and chemicals as a result of their rescue efforts at the World Trade Center.  And, I do not know the five federal law enforcement officers who died doing what they loved doing at the WTC.  I've never seen them, spoken to them, or emailed them.  But, I know them.  I know their hearts.  I know their dedication.  I know the fears that they faced and I know the satisfaction that they experienced at the end of a shift.  I know what they know, what they knew: what it's like to go home at the end of the day.  Unlike them, I do not know what it is like to know that you will not be going home at the end of your watch.

Oh, yes, I've run into a burning building looking for victims (who weren't there).  I've stared death in the face a time or two.  I've had good days and I’ve had bad days.  There were little acts of heroics that maybe resulted in a cut finger or a scraped knuckle.  More often than not the heroics consisted of changing out somebody’s flat tire or showing third graders what the inside of a police care looks like.  And yes, I've ruined a few people's days and a few of my uniforms.  But, at the end of the day I always went home.

Let me tell you just a couple of things about this fraternal order.  Just because you are a member you don't always give or get a "professional courtesy" when you are caught speeding or running a stop sign or red light.  However, as a police officer you can travel across this country and walk into any police station and sit down to a cup of coffee or bottle of soda and talk about common experiences for about as long as you want.  Officers from two different departments can work together on a common crime "in progress" and work together seamlessly even though they may have never seen each other before in their lives.  As a police officer in one jurisdiction you can call a police officer in another jurisdiction and request that something will be done and it will get done.  As a police officer you realize that your own badge is tarnished when some idiot cop on the other side of the country dishonored his or her badge.  As a police officer, your heart aches whenever another police officer somewhere, anywhere has died in the line of duty.  You see, we are friends.  We are family.  Whether the uniform is dark blue or light blue, brown, tan, gray, white, or green—active or retired, we've all run the scenario through our minds a thousand times.  And we never forget.

So here's to 136 friends that died either 14 years ago today or in the months and years since then from illnesses and injuries suffered on that day.  Here's to the mommies and daddies, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, chaplains, chiefs, commanders, supervisors, line officers, and my friends who ran into buildings while others ran out of those same buildings 14 years ago today.

And lest we forget, there were 343 firefighters and 8 paramedics who also perished on that day whose heroics are not to be diminished in any way, shape, or form in my tribute to my 136 friends.

The Constitutional and Moral Crisis of Same-sex Marriage

I have been greatly disturbed by the name-calling and finger-pointing that has taken place in recent days over the jailing of the Kentucky county clerk in a contempt citation for failing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples desiring to be married.  Because she has stood her ground firm in her convictions she and others who stand with her have been labeled as bigots.  For the record, I’ve not been too pleased with many who side with her as their behavior is equally unbecoming.

(As a side note, I find it interesting how easy it is to shut down all reasonable and civil discourse by the introduction of name-calling.  It seems nowadays that the first person to sling out the word “bigot” or “racist” at another person is the winner.  It has a chilling effect and is poised simply at putting a person on the defensive and stirring deep personal integrity responses instead of stimulating thoughtful dialogue.)

I.    Issues of Faith

Those who point to Old Testament scriptures in their sanctimonious smugness as an argument against those who rely on the word of God as their confidence on their faith that gay marriage is contrary to the Lord’s will neither understand the context of the Old Testament nor hold to the truths of the New Testament. I speak directly to those who point to "The West Wing" dialogue recently showing up on Facebook and to various scriptures in Leviticus that condemn those who touch the skin of a pig and Old Testament prohibitions. Talk about cherry-picking!  I also speak to those who rely solely on the Old Testament as their justification to abhor same sex marriage!  Neither one of you (proponents/opponents) have a grasp of the scriptures. Shame on both of you for relying only on the Old Testament as your "authority".

It is clear from reading both the Old and New Testaments that marriage was intended by God to be between a man and a woman and that among other things they were commanded to bear children.  Re-interpretation and selective revision of ancient texts may convince a person otherwise.  That’s what happens when you rewrite scripture to fit your circumstances and to help you feel better about yourself.  This happens a lot these days and it applies to many topics.  People seem to forget that God is the One who sets the rules, not us.

The Old Testament, specifically the Law of Moses, was given as a "schoolmaster" to the children of Israel to prepare them for the coming of the Messiah.  It was given to them because they could not, or at least would not, obey a higher law which the Savior brought with Him in His mortal ministry. These strict commands were also given to them as a means of self-preservation. In some instances commandments were given as health codes and in other cases commandments were given to them as a means of identifying the covenant people.  They were recognized by the way they lived.

The Law of Moses was not done away with upon the advent of the Savior's mortal ministry. To the contrary, the Savior brought a more restrictive law. For example, under the Law of Moses it was forbidden to commit adultery. Under the Law of the Gospel of Jesus Christ a person was forbidden to even look upon a woman (or a man) with an adulterous heart.  To be perfectly clear, the Ten Commandments have not been rescinded neither have they gone through a name change. They are NOT the ten suggestions.

Those who would point only to the Old Testament and say that it was a harsh way to guide a people overlook the various commands in that Holy Writ to love one another.  The Christ of the New Testament did not give that as a new command during His earthly ministry, but He first gave it as the God of the Old Testament. To those who believe, it really is possible to "love thy neighbor" while abhorring the sin at the same time. That was the intent of the God of the Old Testament and it was the same intent of the God of the New Testament.

If you think it is impossible to hate the sin but love the sinner, then ask yourself this question, especially if you are a parent.  Have you ever loved your child in spite of the bad things, perhaps even the terrible things that he or she has done?

II. Constitutional Issues

Many who are cheering the incarceration of County Clerk Davis for refusal to issue marriage licenses to anybody, not just same sex couples, say that she was jailed for not doing her job.  Her backers say that she was jailed because of her deeply held Christian belief.  The issue is really quite moot.  The reality is that she was jailed because of her deeply held religious beliefs prevented her from doing what was never a part of her job when she initially took office and by what became the law of the land, not through the constitutionally provided way (i.e., a legislative action), but through five unelected people sitting on the nation’s highest court who are accountable to no one but themselves.  However, a much larger issue looms before the courts and it is one that Chief Justice John Roberts spelled out in his minority opinion.  Rather than reprint the full 29-page dissent, I am including his concluding remarks that now (and frankly at the time) seemed prophetic.  (I have placed some parts of Roberts’ dissent in italics and in bold typeface.)

JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS

v.

RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL

“Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights.   They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before  the  court  or  to anticipate  problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right.  Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty.  Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution.  Amdt. 1.

            “Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice.  The majority’s decision imposing same sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations.  The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage.  Ante, at 27.   The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion.  Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

            “Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples.  Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38.  There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

“Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.  The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same sex marriage.  Ante,   at 19.    That disclaimer is hard to square with the very next sentence, in which the majority explains that “the necessary consequence” of laws codifying the traditional definition of marriage is to “demea[n] or stigmatiz[e]” same-sex couples.  Ante, at 19.  The majority reiterates such characterizations over and over.  By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire  history—in  particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” disparage,” “disrespect  and  subordinate,”  and  inflict  “[d]ignitary wounds”  upon their gay and lesbian  neighbors.    Ante,  at 17, 19, 22, 25.  These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court.  See post, at 6–7 (ALITO, J., dissenting).  Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous.  It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted.  Ante, at 19.

            “In the face of all this, a much different view of the Court’s role impossible.  That view is more modest and restrained.  It is more skeptical that the legal abilities of judges also reflect insight into moral and philosophical issues.  It is more sensitive to the fact that judges are unelected and unaccountable, and that the legitimacy of their power depends on confining it to the exercise of legal judgment.  It is more attuned to the lessons of history, and what it has meant for the country and Court when Justices have exceeded their proper bounds.  And it is less pretentious than to suppose that while people around the world have viewed an  institution in a particular way for thousands of years, the present generation and the present Court are the ones chosen to burst the bonds of that history and tradition.

*    *    *

“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal.   Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner.  Celebrate the availability of new benefits.  But do not celebrate the Constitution.  It had nothing to do with it.

“I respectfully dissent. “

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

            I don’t think anybody wanted to see a constitutional showdown, but we now have one.

II.       Concluding Comments

One should not think that because Kim Davis has been released from jail that this matter has been resolved.  It will climb and claw its way up to the Supreme Court again, whether through Mrs. Davis or through some other person or official.  I note that there are judges across the country who have already committed to not solemnizing same-sex marriages.

I do not know why some people struggle with same-sex attraction.  While as a matter of personal faith (if you want to call it religious conscience, that’s fine) I believe it is wrong to discriminate against those with same-sex partners in areas of housing, employment, tax status, and so forth.  I feel a great sense of empathy for those who experience same-gender attraction who love and make deep personal commitments to their partners.  To be perfectly clear, I have a number of friends who are in relationships with same-sex partners and I value them, respect them, and honor them and their friendship as much as I do the relationship I have with my heterosexual friends.  I am pretty sure that they understand my position and have been nothing but gracious and respectful of me and my beliefs.

I recently posted a proclamation published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Facebook entitled The Family: A Proclamation to the World.  It was first published on September 23, 1995.  I wish to quote parts of that proclamation in concluding my comments here.

The Family

A Proclamation to the World

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

***

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

***

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). …

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.