ethel’s words

Click your browser’s “Back” button to return to SmashingIkons


I am puzzled--indeed, baffled--that Massachusetts plans to enforce the laws of other states within the borders of Massachusetts. Does this mean when I visit Massachusetts, I will see the cops arresting persons who are smoking in a night club? Will I see cops arresting persons who are smoking within 25 feet of a doorway? Will they arrest me when I drive along a Boston street with an opened bottle of alcoholic beverage in my car?

Now, I am not entirely unsophisticated. I do understand that laws are enforced selectively, not uniformly. In fact, I understand that no attempt is made to enforce laws uniformly. The thought is ridiculous. Of course we respect and dream of “Equal Justice Under Law” but that dream does not blank out reality. Still, is there a limit to how institutionalized selective enforcement can go?

Now, I see little hints that Mitt thinks his governance goes far beyond enforcement of executive duties in Mass. He thinks it is his duty to enforce Mormon morality in Mass. It appears that Mass is putting up with this.

I have observed for many decades that Gentiles will vote for Mormons (or could not vote at all in most of Utah) but Mormons will not vote for a Gentile. This seems a little unequal to me--a little “equal rights for me” means “no rights for you” mentality that we have herein Utah.

Yes, there is an exception (sorta) to this “vote only for Mormons” rule. The Church wants a larger role in national elections as Mormons take over Wash D.C. and The White House, so this is why The Church has anointed “Republicans” de facto “Mormons”. And vice versa. If you believe the recent declaration that a Mormon can be a Democrat and be comfortable, you are naive.

Ethel C. Hale