In what may surprise some, Reinhardt is not arguing that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, as the original federal judge, now retired, Vaughan Walker, did. That’s a smart move, because that’s a big step for Kennedy to take. Instead, Reinhardt’s decision differed with Vaughan and instead compared Prop 8 to an initiative in Colorado that was struck down by the Supreme Court in the 1990s. Read the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto’s analysis here.

Amendment 2 in Colorado barred Colorado from taking actions “designed to protect the status of persons based on their ‘homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.” The high court ruled that the law in Colorado violated equal protection. Guess who wrote the decision — you guessed right, Anthony Kennedy. Prop 8, the appeals court is saying, puts gays and lesbians in a solitary class, thereby imposing a special disability on homosexuals.

So, to sum up, the 9th Court of Appeals’ decision, by Reinhardt, specifically cites the Romer case to justify its striking down of Prop 8. That’s fascinating. It will be interesting to listen to Justice Kennedy during arguments. Here is a portion of Reinhardt’s decision, from Taranto’s piece:

Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single[s] out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status. . . .” Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property” of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but not others,” an existing legal right–here, access to the official designation of “marriage”–that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the [U.S.] Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place.

Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of laws in the most literal sense,” because it “carves out” an “exception” to California’s equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree . . . put[s] [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time.”

That’s sort of sad. While researching the life of the late LDS Prophet George Albert Smith, I learned it was custom long ago for apostles’ offices to be open to the public. One could walk in off the street and seek a meeting. I don’t begrudge the security measures today. There are dangerous people out there and I’m sure many church leaders are threatened by cranks, etc.

But the isolation of the LDS Church hierarchy concerns me at times. We regard our general authorities, particularly the apostles and church president, as theological rock stars. The flattery, particularly in publications such as “The Church News” and “Mormon Times,” is cringe-inducing. I recall an article in “The Church News” urging members to read good books. The cover art, though, was a posed shot of a middle-aged woman reading a Deseret Book hagiography of President Monson. Nothing against an authorized hagiography, I’ve read a few in my time, but the selection of art tells us more about the Deseret Digital Media editor than good books.

Anyway, our stake has been all aflutter recently because our conference would include the LDS apostle, Richard G. Scott. Although he later decided to skip the Sunday AM service, my wife and I were able to see him on Saturday. As I filed into a priesthood leadership “male-only” session that afternoon, it occurred to me that this was only the second time in my life I had been in a setting with an apostle where there were fewer than 100 people in attendance. I decided to take advantage of this rare opportunity and observe an apostle from a distance of less than 25 yards.

Elder Scott is elderly and moves slowly, and appears to have the aches and pains that accompany the final era of a life. At times he would sit down and be relieved for a while by another general authority, one of those ubiquitous seventies. Elder Scott spoke very slowly and deliberately, and appeared to provide a lot of thought before speaking. He handled most of the questions with evident concentration and deference, even the effusive, flattering comments. His responses to questions were more of the common sense variety than an attempt to teach the questioner something new. His answers are, in my opinion, something that the question-asker would have realized on his own after a lot of thought and study on the issue.

It’s easy to see why he was chosen to be an LDS apostle. A retired nuclear physicist, even late in life he looks like someone who can get extremely hard, time-consuming tasks accomplished.

Only once did Elder Scott reveal a persona absent from general conference, or a stake conference leadership meeting. He was asked a tough question, albeit almost apologetically, from a meeting participant. (I won’t reveal the question topic, but most readers’ guesses would be accurate.) Elder Scott offered a terse, 15-word response that the journalist in me thinks may have been memorized. He then paused for several seconds, and curtly stated, “another question.” It was not a query.

We were told in the meeting that apostles are not exempt from home teaching, or being home taught. I hope that statements extends to the latter-day prophets jumping in their vehicles and heading down the street to knock on a ward member’s house. If that’s being done, the next step could be 20-minute talk assignments in random sacrament meetings.

If Romney suffers a significant drop of support because he told CNN that he’s not constantly worried about the poor, then we deserve Newt Gingrich or the re-election of an incumbent whose campaign is all about class envy, for falling for duck speak politics.

We need a president who will work to maintain a strong middle class and provide safety nets that help and assist the poor. In fact, my ideal candidate is one who will prescribe this preventative remedy for poverty. 1) Stay in school, 2) when you get a job, stay with it, and 3) don’t plan on having kids until marriage, 4) And once you’re married, stay true to your vows. I’m not even sure Romney is willing to make that advice a campaign theme, though.

For reasons that include a thick LDS Book of Remembrance, a John Travolta record cover and pure chance, Grandma begins frequent late-night wanderings into Todd’s room where she talks with this “young man” about dancing, her dancer, and requests that he read letters in her well-thumbed-through Book of Remembrance that seem to almost touch her memories. During the days, Todd is a stranger to Grandma. At night, Todd, perceptive enough to not reveal these visits, and thereby slam one more door in Grandma’s increasingly confined life, is a companion to his grandmother’s fading life.

Clark understands that within families, there will always be secrets that may never be explained. As Grandma is forcibly removed from her husband to her daughter’s home, she bitterly tells Charlie, her husband, who dies soon after, that “it’s 1960″ all over again, and finally he got what he wanted. No one other than Charlie knows what that means. One late night, Todd reads to Grandma, from the Book of Remembrance, a 1960 era letter from Charlie begging his wife, Gail, to take him back. We never learn more about the short separation, apparently hidden even from their kids. It’s a reminder that there are some secrets that parents don’t share with children, and that we often never learn.

That is contrasted with an assault new-seventh-grader Todd suffers from a sexually sadistic gym teacher, who in front of the class, brutally humiliates and beats Todd. The beating leaves serious wounds to his buttocks. Rather than have the teacher arrested, Todd and his brother go to great pains to hide the wounds. Although the gym teacher nonchalantly threatens Todd if he tells, that’s not the motivation for Todd’s reluctance. Todd worries that to expose the beating will lead to his own social disgrace. A further incident in this subplot involves Todd’s mother, Linda, hearing of the discipline and demanding that Todd inform the school authorities. She’s rebuffed by her husband, Bob, who believes Todd must have done something to deserve the beating. The matter ends there, and nothing more is said, although Bob spends the night on the couch.

Neither of Todd’s parents know how brutal and sadistic the beating was. His dad’s reaction reflects a masculine belief of that era, that men didn’t mollycoddle boys, but instead taught them to “grow up.” Todd, and his brother Gregory, seem to accept that sadism fits in that coda. It’s an ugly part of life in 1981 that’s also hinted at earlier when Todd’s dad ignores his wife’s complaints about a male baseball coach that checks for cup protectors by thrusting a bat between the junior high boys’ legs.

These scenes, as well as Todd’s interactions with eccentric, but less dangerous adult ward members and school teachers, as well as his peers, boys and girls, occupy half the novel. Mixed in with the slow deterioration of Grandma Gail Carter, and her nightly excursions to Todd’s room, Todd’s life between childhood and teens, with school, interest in girls, church, Grandma, etc., align with his slow growth and maturity. There is a scene, where the family travels to Utah to bury Grandma’s husband, Charlie. While there, Todd listens to a conversation between his mom and her elder brother, who has avoided helping with Grandma and her dementia. During the conversation, Todd’s uncle cries a lot but takes no responsibility for his mom’s sad condition. He constantly requests his sister, Todd’s mom, to take initiative. As Clark writes, (Todd realizes) “Uncle Ted is a total wuss. Maybe the biggest wuss on earth.”

It’s an eye-opener for a young man who realizes his mother’s choice to care for her helpless parents is not an obligation, but a choice that takes charity, love, will and strength, attributes his uncle lacks in droves.

The themes of dancing and disco are prevalent in the books. Chapters are named after disco-era songs. It also highlights how confusing — to all of us, not just the aged — dementia is. A John Travolta record cover is like one piece in a puzzle to an old woman who can’t connect to 98 percent of the puzzle pieces; but she grabs at what she can.

Interludes in the novel take us to 2011, where Todd is preparing for the death of his mother, Linda. The short scenes capture the regret and irony of having to make depressing decisions for those who once took care of our every need.

There are amusing anecdotes in “The Death of a Disco Dancer,” but it’s at heart a bittersweet tale. When you live too long, death is demeaning, and taxing for those who love you the most. And it’s a challenge to find the good in that stranger who once loved you, so reach out at every shard of memory that offers a glimpse of their humanity. (You can learn more about the novel here. Be advised that Kindle and other online editions are cheaper.)

But, to draw another movie analogy, “There Will Be Blood” now that the conservative knives are sharpened for Mitt (read). There is a heavy onslaught against Newt, from topics ranging to past scandals to his frequent disses of Ronald Reagan 20 to 26 years ago. They’re all true, of course. Gingrich is finally reaping what a vanity and mouth that won’t shut up for generations sows. Romney’s ahead now in Florida (read). If Newt doesn’t do very well in tonight’s CNN debate, his latest surge will probably die rather than weaken. Future contests are in Colorado, Nevada, Michigan, Maine, Virginia, all areas where Romney is way ahead. Also, there’s only one debate scheduled in February.

A glance at the last 30 years of presidential politics provide a strong clue to why the Tea Party Republicans have had a tough time warming to Romney and have seriously flirted with Gingrich. Following the two elections of Ronald Reagan to the presidency, the Republican Party has nominated only the “establishment choices” for president. The two successful candidates were the Bush father/son political dynasty, who are moderate conservatives. The two other nominations were bloodless, aging moderates Bob Dole (1996) and John McCain (2008), who more or less bested the field because it was “their turn” to be the GOP nominee.

Movement conservatives are worried, and in some cases, terrified, that Mitt Romney, if nominated, will either 1) win and be like the Bushes, or 2) prove to be a flawed, “it’s-my-turn candidate” who loses after putting up an uninspired race against President Barack Obama.

That’s why Newt’s resurrected himself from the dead a couple of times this political season. However, like the resurrected dead in “Plan 9 From Outer Space,” I think it’s not too long before he’s reduced to bones.

The bill would allow state employees to use benefits for others they choose, provided those persons pass requirements to be a recipient of benefits. Obviously, same-sex partners would primarily benefit from the bill, but conceivably others could benefit, such as a parent. As long as two people live in the same home for more than a year and share the responsibilities of living together, it makes sense to extend benefits. It’s already done in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County and it hasn’t proven to be a budget-buster. In fact, according to Doughty, only about 2 percent of those employees use the domestic-partner benefit.

It’s important to stress the potential low cost of Doughty’s bill, because moralists in the Legislature will say that it isn’t right to spend tax money on domestic partners. What they really object to is gay and lesbian domestic partners receiving benefits earned by those who love gays and lesbians. But it’s uncomfortable to explain it that way, so they will cite fiscal reasons.

But if two people love each other and are in a committed, long-term relationship, benefits should be extended, just as they would to any spouse. One needs to remember same-sex couples are not allowed to marry in Utah, so they don’t have that option. Doughty’s bill, HB64, recognizes that there exist diverse, unusual situations in homes that go beyond the traditional family. These are situations in which such types of benefits for workers should be recognized and offered.

The Utah Legislature needs to understand diversity and exercise the compassion to pass this bill. To not do so would be a casually cruel act.

Growing up I recall hearing from older members that the church would never buckle to the ways of the world and change its stance that denied preferred church status on blacks, such as the priesthood and temple recommends. Ironically, the very tone of these assurances — resignation rather than defiance — was an indicator that a change was on the way. Seriously, can anyone imagine the LDS Church having any respect — or significant membership — today if the ban on blacks had not ended 32 years ago?

Today, I often hear the battle over gay marriage discussed — in church meetings, etc. — in combative terms, a sort of “in-the-world-but-not-of-the-world” scenario. I imagine that 125-plus years ago, polygamy was defended by Mormons in such a manner. Within a generation, it became clear, culturally, politically and economically, that polygamy had to end. By the end of the first decade of the 20th century, those who couldn’t abandon it — including apostles — were being excommunicated. Conversely, for most of the 20th century, defense of the ban on blacks was defended vigorously.

In the public record, and easily accessible, is a personal letter, under LDS Church stationary, written to then-Michigan Gov. George W. Romney (Mitt’s dad) by the late LDS Apostle Delbert L. Stapley. In it, the apostle Stapley gently chastises Romney for his support of the Civil Rights bill. This is a document from a different era, and my intention is not to apply 2012 principles to Stapley. It is to point out that if an apostle wrote this letter today and it became public, he or she would certainly be released by church leaders. Here are a few excerpts from the letter:

• “When I reflect upon the Prophet’s statements and remember what happened to three of our nation’s presidents who were very active in the Negro cause, I am sobered by their demise. They went contrary to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith …”

• “I fully agree that the Negro is entitled to considerations, also stated above, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage privileges with the Whites, nor should Whites be forced to accept them into restricted White areas. …”

• “Now don’t think I am against the Negro people, because I have several in my employ. …”

• Also, in the letter, Stapley recounts the fate of a friend in Arizona who not only urged Stapley to change the church’s position on blacks, but lobbied for civil rights. Stapley writes, “… I explained to him that the Lord had placed the curse upon the Negro, which denied him the priesthood; therefore, it was the Lord’s responsibility–not man’s– to change His decision. This friend of mine met a very tragic end by drowning. He was a most enthusiastic advocate of the colored cause and went about promoting for them all the privileges, social opportunities, and participation enjoyed by the Whites.”

To Romney’s credit, he ignored the letter, with its racist sentiments, (here) and increased his support for the civil rights bill. It’s interesting that Stapley notes, as examples, deaths — by three presidents and his friend — as a consequence of supporting equal rights for blacks. That’s a head-scratcher to me. The drowning death is interesting; Mormon lore declares that Satan has control over the water. As a missionary, I was told that was the reason we could not swim on our times off from proselyting.

That letter was written 48 years ago today. Despite its racism, it does reflect the evolution of church thought on the issue. Stapley perhaps recognizes that the doctrine will end, as he writes, “The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself.”

In any event, Stapley’s letter, however objectionable, is light years in difference from the avowedly ugly, racist talk delivered at BYU in 1954 by another apostle, the late Mark E. Peterson. In that speech, Peterson opined that the highest degree a black person could attain in the Celestial Kingdom was as a servant; and that’s one of his more tolerant opinions.

The point here is not to bash the LDS Church, or use these retrograde opinions — uttered in a different era — to attack my faith. Most religions have these types of outrages and embarrassments tucked away amidst a mostly virtuous past. What might be gleaned from these examples is the possibility that widespread LDS church opposition to gay marriage may seem, a generation or two from now, as odd and distasteful as the long ago opinions of Stapley and Peterson on civil rights do.

For those readers who might argue that it was the Lord that dictated the LDS Church’s positions — pro and con — on polygamy and equal rights for blacks, I argue that they allow themselves to dwell on the possibility that the Lord may also intervene on behalf of gay marriage as well.

That’s what demagogues are preparing to launch at Mitt Romney, who after accumulating a fortune, has apparently lived off investment earnings. That’s not uncommon among the wealthy. When Romney, or Warren Buffett, or others, originally earned the money that laid the foundation for later investments, that income was taxed at the current income tax rate, which is considerably higher. Example: today, if taxable income is about $380,000 a year, the rate is 35 percent, although it’s slated to rise to above 39 percent in later years.

The reason capital gains taxes are lower is because we want to provide incentives for persons to invest money and keep it flowing into the economy. A return on an investment is only a small part of income that fuels a “Google” or a “McDonald’s.” Or, if an individual buys a painting that increases in value by $1,000, the lower tax allows that person to spend other portions of the earned investment in the economy. If I invest in a stock and that investments grows and I cash in the increase, I’m taxed. It’s simple.

The government wants all Americans to circulate their earned investment income within the economy. In fact, for Americans who earn less than others, or are in the 10 to 15 percent ordinary income rate, the capital gains tax rate, for now, is 0 percent.

Except a lot of lying about this issue. But please, be smart enough to see through it.

Somewhere, in a trailer in the Panhandle, a Bubba preacher is mulling over whether he should burn a Koran or call Mitt Romney an agent of Satan. Over at MSNBC, Ed Schultz is trashing Mormonism, and by extension, Mitt Romney. So are Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Matthews. In other news, evangelicals in South Carolina and Florida are ready to easily boost Romney to wins in the South Carolina and Florida primaries. Tales of evangelical hostility to a Mormon presidential candidate (read) are way too hyped. The group that is most likely to oppose Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon are liberals.

Romney will win the Republican Party nomination. He’s at 40 percent nationally in one poll, 37 percent in Gallup (read) and it’s ludicrous to think that evangelical, Tea Party-ish conservatives are more annoyed with Mormonism than the policies of the Obama administration.

Opposing a candidate because he is a Mormon, or a Muslim, is on its way to becoming as despised as opposing a candidate because he or she is a Jew, or black. But last year, more Democrats than Republicans said they’d oppose a Mormon. (Read) I think that disparity will get wider as Romney gets closer to winning the nomination.

Is the liberal problem with Mormonism the result of bigotry? No. Or who God is or whether we can become gods? No. It derives from the battle over gay marriage, particularly Proposition 8 in California, where Mormons played a role in anti-gay marriage campaigns. It also involves perceived LDS positions on various other morality issues, anywhere from abortion, school prayer, religious expressions on public property, etc.. On these many issues most evangelicals are allies with Mormons, who have angered liberals by institutionally opposing gay marriage, etc.

As blogger J Stapley points out in the bycommonconsent Mormon-themed blog, that’s not all the facts. (Read) To opine that George Albert Smith might have suffered from mental disorder is not unfair to him, nor is it an insult to the late LDS prophet.

Ultimately, it’s a story of triumph for Albert Smith, who was able to resume his life and work after his breakdown, that included depression and anxiety, and continue working for almost 40 years.

Rather than being downplayed, Albert Smith’s successful battle with depression, anxiety, and health-related issues should be a teaching tool to help members today who suffer from the same maladies. These are unique problems; just look at Utah’s statistics regrading depression, pain killers and tranquilizer use.

Albert Smith biographer, Mary Jane Woodger, a BYU professor of LDS church history and doctrine, penned a detailed look at the breakdown in the Fall 2008 edition of the Journal of Mormon History. “Cheat the Asylum of a Victim:” George Albert Smith’s 1909-12 Breakdown” refers to advice the 40-year-old Albert Smith, “down from nervous frustration,” received from his uncle, Dr. Heber J. Sears, who pleaded with Albert Smith to “dump your responsibility for a while before the hearse dumps your bones.”

As Woodger relates, physical and emotional health issues plagued Albert Smith all of his life. His eyesight was damaged early in his life while working as a surveyor. When he was called to be an apostle at age 33 in 1903, his father, apostle John Henry Smith, said, “He’s not healthy. He won’t last long,” relates Woodger.

It’s true that 100-plus years ago apostles had very rigorous jobs. They were not insulated from the public like today’s LDS leaders. They often traveled long stretches over tough routes in wagons, trains and early auto vehicles. It was the custom for traveling apostles to stay in the homes of local church members, rather than paid lodgings. For Albert Smith, who suffered from bowel discomforts, the rich food often served caused great discomfort. According to Woodger, the young apostle “averaged 30,000 miles a year as a young apostle.” Experiences included riding on top of a crowded boxcar on a hot day and a cold, rainy night in a wagon that leaked. Dysentery, perhaps enhanced due to stress, also plagued Albert Smith often.

The strenuous work schedule also affected Albert Smith’s wife, Lucy Emily. She often worried about her husband’s health, fretted over his frequent absence from the family, and frequently bemoaned how his absence affected her.

As Woodger writes, “… mental or emotional instability was seldom given much attention except for outright insanity in the early 20th century.” However, three of his grandchildren cite terms such as “depression,” problems associated with his mental health,” “tremendous stress,” and “being overwhelmed” as attributes of their grandfather. According to Woodger, Albert Smith often over-exerted himself in his work. He would also over-invest himself emotionally in the work of others, and end up emotionally overwrought at their failures. It’s worth noting that psychiatry as an accepted treatment in Utah was virtually non-existent for the first third of the 20th century.

After Albert Smith became too exhausted to work, LDS Church leaders — who were compassionate, encouraging and caring during his convalescence — moved him to Ocean Park, Calif., to recuperate. Away from his wife, Lucy, who stayed in Salt Lake City, Albert Smith did not improve and returned to Salt Lake City in August 1909. To try to improve his health, he lived in a tent outdoors, but mostly he remained ill, weak and bedridden. According to Woodger’s research, “George Albert’s father (apostle John Henry Smith) even took the unusual step of sending him ‘a dozen bottles of Basses Pale Ale,’ a British beer, assuring him that he had Joseph F. Smith’s ‘endorsement’ to drink it in the hopes that it would ‘tone up your stomach and put you in a condition to receive and assimilate food.’”

According to an anecdote that has been repeated many times in Mormon churches, during his convalescence, Albert Smith visited his deceased grandfather, George A. Smith, who asked him, “I would like to know what you have done with my name?” After Albert Smith answered that he had never shamed him, the pair hugged. Woodger writes, “This dream reassured him (Albert Smith) that he was free from transgression and acknowledged his worth.”

The still-bedridden Albert Smith was moved to St. George to recuperate. While there, again according to Mormon lore, his long recovery began when he requested that the Lord take him if his earthly work was done but keep him if he still had work to do. Although it’s hard to believe the apostle had not made that prayerful request earlier in his convalescence, of such tales are legends made, and Albert Smith returned to Salt Lake City and a slow recovery.

His recovery, whether through prayer, extended rest, or both, is a triumphant account, and the compassion and patience exercised by his colleagues in the church hierarchy also must have played a role in his recovery.