Before We Prescribe Health Care

A few weeks ago, Republican Scott Brown won Massachusetts's midterm US Senate election to fill the seat vacated at late Senator Ted Kennedy's passing. Many considered the race a referendum on the Obama administration and the Democratic Party in general.

Assuming all the hype about what the outcome of this race means is true, I'm not surprised a Republican won it. Whether Democrats and their liberal-biased media are willing to admit it or not, Obama's approval rating has been plummeting. Obama's perceived lack of action on issues that matter most on Main Street (as the political rhetoric goes), particularly on the economy and health care, has translated into understandable dissatisfaction about his administration. For someone who made so many campaign promises, he might rightly be accused of over-promising and under-delivering.

Truly, Scott Brown's victory in a state as blue as Massachusetts is something for Republicans everywhere to celebrate. Senator-elect Brown has promised, among other things, to be the 41st vote against the proposed Health Care Reform bill, thus subjecting it to filibuster and likely mitigating Democrats' ambitions to deliver their much-anticipated and highly-scrutinized government-option and coverage-for-all legislation. The conservative right has successfully persuaded Americans they stand to lose quality of care by providing basic care to the uncovered and under-insured.

In fact, the conservative right has successfully persuaded many Americans that Obama's change-bandwagon on which the whole country so enthusiastically hopped 14 months ago might be leading us down the wrong path yet. Moreover, they've been so successful in their moral crusade against all forms of lascivious Obamanation that siding with the president on anything... well, they might as well be siding with the devil in their conservative base's eyes.

The president pointed this out to Republicans at a retreat that House GOP leaders held the day after the recent State of the Union address. This tendency to oppose everything that could be perceived as coming from any source outside the Republican Party has paralyzed the political process. To be fair, Democrats haven't exactly been earnestly seeking Republican support for their ideas in recent months. Perhaps Senator Brown's election will open their eyes. But the notion that "if we can bring down the president on health care reform, we can defeat him" or that "this will be his Waterloo" isn't helping the situation. More recently, Republicans' continued obstinacy in the face of President Obama's outreach for discussion and compromise on health care is further evidence of their unwillingness to work with anything from outside their camp. The ensuing political gridlock isn't serving anyone, especially not the people we elect our officials to represent. Shouldn't we (and they) all be rooting for the Patriots rather than the Elephants or the Donkeys?

Our Declaration of Independence states that "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are "unalienable Rights" "endowed by [our] Creator," and that "Governments are instituted among Men" "to secure [them]." These words are planted carefully in the hearts of children and rooted firmly in the minds of adults across our country. It's what we stand for.

Ironically, despite our nation's status as the birthplace of modern democracy, we are alone among our first-world peers in not understanding that it's hard to experience any of the three aforementioned unalienable rights when plagued by a chronic but curable disease or when worrying about how to pay for a desperately-needed but unaffordable life-saving medical procedure.

Our first-world counterparts in nations around the globe have made a choice we Americans have not yet been willing to make. To paraphrase a British friend of mine, Brits decided years ago that no one would die because he couldn't afford medical coverage. Not on their watch. There, citizens have decided that health care is a question of dignity, not one of dollars and cents or pounds and pence.

Is it really that far of a stretch to expand our understanding of unalienable, God-given rights to expecting that in the richest country in the world, no one should die or suffer unnecessarily when the technology and trained professionals are available to save and to heal? Are we so depraved?

How introducing the public sector into a previously private market will affect the competition in providing health care remains to be seen. This competition, after all, is what ensures options and second opinions as well as the research that develops the cutting edge treatments for which America has become renowned.

Or is it?

In looking around us, other countries, including Mexico, have successful public and private options for health care. In the UK, despite a fully-developed public option, many employers also offer successful private insurance plans. Furthermore, medical research and discovery continue at a healthy rate in the UK, despite public-sector health care coverage. In America, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have neither destroyed nor crippled private-sector health care, despite the sentiment and arguments to the contrary at the time of their approval. These same arguments against a public option in today's debate are without precedent in this country or abroad.

The statistics on the issue of the uninsured are staggering. If 15% of America's population is uninsured, that's 45,000,000 of us. Even if you take the conservative estimate of 10% (which is the current unemployment rate, so it's hard to imagine an uninsured rate less than that), that's 30,000,000 Americans.

According to these conservative estimates, on average, between one in seven and one in ten of our friends and family members does not have health insurance. In certain parts of the country, the numbers are much worse. To which of our friends or family members would we choose to deny coverage? Which of our children does not deserve health care?

While we might not be aware of it, many of our immediate connections are uninsured. It's surprising how many of us fit the description. As a child of successful, self-employed parents, my family and I were members of this demographic all throughout my childhood. More obviously uninsured are the unemployed, but in these woeful economic times, who among us hasn't either been without a job or had an immediate family member lose a job? Will we choose to deny our families coverage?

Many of the uninsured are the very people who are trying to pursue the American dream. Their creativity and entrepreneurial spirit drive our economy. For them, this dream is just out of reach. With nearly 50% of American households involved in home-based business opportunities, we all know someone who works from home. When both parents work from home or for a small business, there's no affordable solution for health insurance.

Even university graduates can't afford health insurance. It is only now that I have found a job with a large employer that I am beginning to understand what it seems the insured 255,000,000 - 270,000,000 citizens of our country take for granted: the peace of mind that comes from knowing that if something terrible happens, I'm covered. For the last 6 months since graduation, however, I've been uninsured.

So why are so many Americans not insured? Is there any reason health insurance can't be purchased like car or homeowner's insurance? I don't have to work for a large corporation to purchase either of these latter forms of insurance at affordable rates, so why not health insurance?

The truth is, the only thing standing between the uninsured and affordable insurance is a corrupt health insurance industry and perverse incentives governing the health care delivery system.

But before we simply insure everyone in this country, let's consider the incentives involved and how their consequences will impact us taxpayers who are footing the bill and supposedly benefiting from it.

In our country, private firms have historically delivered health care as a business service. Like all businesses, health insurers and doctors' offices respond to economic incentives to maximize profits. To this end, these businesses must either increase their net income or decrease their expenses. And so in this, America's current health care delivery system, we shouldn't be surprised to see both health insurers and doctors' offices extracting every penny possible from us and each other to compete and get ahead. Moreover, we should expect insurers to raise premiums (increasing net income) and find loopholes in coverage policies to avoid paying out (decreasing expenses) to the extent they can get away with it. As covered as we feel as insured Americans, our private health care providers are still more motivated by maximizing profits than by paying out benefits.

In addition to insurance companies' incentive not to pay out, doctors and their practices bill--either through reimbursement from insurance companies or out of the uninsured's pocket--based on the number and types of procedures and tests they perform. What incentive do they have not to perform the most expensive procedures as frequently as possible, even when they're unnecessary and repetitive? What incentive do they have not to up-sell us on procedures we don't need?

Unfortunately, America's health care delivery system has reduced health care to responding to such economic incentives as these. If we are to demand the best, most-appropriate care for our medical condition, we must remove money from the decision equation. We need doctors who provide what is needed, not what costs the least or earns the most. When doctors' decisions regarding procedures and care are tainted by financial incentives, that is when we lose quality of care. Likewise, we need patients who aren't worried about price tags when they enter doctors' offices and ask about available treatments. Should we not exhaust all resources in a reasonable attempt to preserve human life? Doctors and their offices need the freedom to do what is appropriate and decent rather than what is fiscally prudent. Only then will we experience true quality of care.

And so we stand at a crossroads in our history: will America, the birthplace of modern democracy, continue to be the only first-world nation not to offer health care to its citizens? Will health care in this country continue to be a question of money and status, or will we finally grant to all our citizens the human dignity and unalienable rights our Declaration of Independence claims we endear?

The suspense is killing me.

The attainability of true happiness in Gospel-centered living

As you might have noticed over the past few months, in an attempt to better understand my own motivations for living the way I do, I have addressed several topics relating to the practice—or perhaps, malpractice—of religion. I’d like to try to address an issue that I feel greatly impeded my understanding of both the Gospel and what some would deem “true happiness.” And so before we get started, I’d like to attempt to define a few terms. “Gospel-centered living” is a term I’ve developed to try to explain my lifestyle. It’s a life where I’m trying to do what I feel is right, but where that right is defined or at least guided by what the religious school of thought to which I subscribe proclaims. In this discussion, “true happiness” refers to a happiness devoid of feelings of culpability and regret, uninhibited by what might be if we do or had done more.


Some of the faithful would suggest that by leading a Gospel-centered life we will be happy, as though there were some formula for creating happiness. For many, there is a series of hoops which, if jumped through in the proper order and with the right frequency, will ultimately lead to happiness.

I hear comments like the following so often I’m growing weary of them: “And I know that living this Gospel is the only way we can find happiness in this life.” If this statement is true, then why is it that the same faithful individuals claiming Gospel-centered living to be the key to happiness are so unhappy in living what they’re preaching? Depression runs rampant among the faithful, and yet the Gospel-centered life is supposed to bring happiness.

I think in some cases, people are sincerely trying to convince themselves that the way they’re living and thinking about themselves and the world will one day lead to happiness, at the expense of feeling there’s something wrong with them if they’re not happy living what they think is the Gospel’s proscribed way. Somehow, by repeating what they’ve heard other unhappy individuals say about what they believed would lead them to happiness, they’re one step closer to believing it for themselves.

Evidently, there’s a disconnect here. These faithful are mislead (which many atheists and agnostics will argue), they’re misinformed (as many faithful from the world’s religions aside from your own will tell you), or they’re misunderstanding the truth they profess to believe in. As a man who believes to have found truth, I am inclined to believe the third among my fellow faithful.

We will only ever be as happy as we allow ourselves to be. If we impose upon ourselves an unattainable goal, our never attaining it will ultimately lead to our unhappiness. Just as we avoid disappointment by managing our expectations, we must avoid unhappiness by managing our reality. It is here I feel so many faithful err. Somehow we think we’ll be happy by following some nonexistent or inefficacious formula to a t, while there’s really no formula to follow. When I share an experience that promoted my faith, my hope is that it will edify others. However, I cannot expect a personal experience to play out in the life of anyone who seeks to repeat it. Rather, I would hope that those listening would apply the principles surrounding the events that lead to my faith-promoting experience.

Just as an artist will not succeed by recreating someone else’s masterpiece, we must paint the canvas of our own lives with our own colors and in our own way. Only then will the experiences that promote our faith also lead to our happiness.

"...waiting on the world to change."

Admittedly, I'm a bit perturbed.

Or perhaps disappointed is a better word. When considering the political atmosphere, there's plenty of cause for disappointment. As politicians continue to make promises they evidently aren't keeping, I'm disappointed. When politics becomes a game where parties and players are more concerned with keeping score and jockeying for position than they are with representing people, I'm disappointed. But we aren't doing much to encourage good behavior.

It seems almost all political commentary, whether via mass media, Facebook note, or blog, is centered on what candidates aren't doing for us. Now, don't get me wrong, we need to hold our politicians to as many of their promises as possible, but why do we not hear about the promises politicians are keeping? Surely they're keeping some of them, and probably as many as they realistically can. It's so easy to focus on the negative, especially when we're searching for ammunition against the opposing team.

As the result of a process I still don't understand, I was selected to represent my high school to go to Boys' State in my home State. The experience was more than just informative, it was enlightening. I was disgusted by the amount of backbiting, lying, maneuvering, and manipulation used to gain support for a candidate or cause in such inconsequential policy-making. Based on this experience with high school juniors, I can only imagine what's going on in Washington with PhDs, JDs, MAs, MSs, and MBAs.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see an honest politician? I hesitate to put those two words next to each other. I guess that's why I'm still, in the words of John Mayer, "waiting on the world to change." I know how ideological it sounds to think there's such a thing as an honest politician, but it sure would be a breath of fresh air.

Why can't we focus on the good? Should politics be as intrinsically pessimistic as we make it out to be? If we ever want to get anything done, we need to stop pointing fingers.

Gandhi said we need to be the change we want to see in the world. Maybe we could start by encouraging politicians when they're doing things right, rather than criticizing them (as we're so wont to do) when they're doing things wrong. "One day my generation is going to rule the population" (thanks again, JM). I just hope we'll be better about all this than the current critics. Unfortunately, I guess I have my doubts.

Qualifying the goodness of others

One of my least favorite expressions, which I hear at church all the time, goes something like this: "He/She's not a member [of our church], but...." The commentator then goes on to say what a wonderful or Christlike person the individual is or what a good example he/she is, and the comment is usually pronounced in a tone implying, "I was surprised to find a good example of any Gospel principle outside the membership of our church, and you should be as surprised too!" So why do we always have to qualify or justify people outside our church?

The word "but" is a loaded word, charged with more meaning than its measly three letters might suggest. Essentially, when we say "but," we are emphasizing an implied contradiction between what we said in the first clause and in the second clause of the sentence. For example, "He's not a doctor, but he knows a lot about micro pathogens." Or even sarcastically, "I'm no rocket scientist, but that looks like it should work." So when we say, "He/She's not a member [of our church], but..." we imply that our friends of other faiths should not be expected to be good people. Am I truly to believe that? I won't!

It only makes sense that each faith believes it is teaching the truth. (If it weren't, why not belong to the faith that was?) A belief system is based on the belief that it is correct. So we should expect our friends to believe they believe the truth, regardless of whether we believe what they believe. It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that I feel I really have found a great source of truth in my church. In fact, I haven't found a better one anywhere.

Accepting this belief, however, I accept that others likely feel the same way about their faith. They believe they're doing what's right, and quite frankly, many of them are likely doing as good a job or better of living right as I am. To assume less would be presumptuous. So why should I be surprised when I hear an inspiring story about a friend or prominent figure of another faith?

In addition, asking whether someone "is a member [of the Church]" creates several unwanted consequences. Are we to have our friends of other faiths feel alienated every time we refer to them as "non-members?" Not members of what? Is the Church some kind of exclusive club, where you're either in or out, or should the Church be a place where all feel welcome? Besides, if a visiting member of another faith is questioned about his membership, will he even know to which membership we're referring? "Of the health club? The yacht club? Sure, sure, I'm a member."

Another undesirable consequence of such thoughtless language is the alienation and distance it creates. Many faiths--including the majority of Christian faiths, I would argue--are openly evangelical. Recruiting the new faithful is essential. If it is our goal to increase our church's membership, should we not be referring to visitors inclusively rather than exclusively?

Moreover, our church activities should be designed in such a way that those of all faiths feel comfortable attending and participating. Now don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing for Unitarianism, just an open exchange of ideas. Should church not be a forum where our questions are answered? If we want to be better at answering people's questions, some practice might not hurt. Why not host such practice in our church meetings?

When I look at the violence around the world, much of which many attribute to religious differences, I see this exclusionary attitude on both sides of the arguments. If we want to put an end to religious discrimination and violence, crusades and jihad, we might start by including and inviting others in our speech about them rather than self-segregating and alienating ourselves. These attitudes lead to isolationism, a key ingredient to ignorance.

How ironic that it is perhaps in our places of worship, where we preach tolerance and love, that the root of our divisiveness lies!

Sacred Art

In ancient times, only the socially privileged, highly educated, or specially trained knew how to read. In ancient Egyptian and American societies, among others, writing forms were based on pictures that evolved to carry certain meanings. Art, especially in sacred settings, was used to convey messages to the illiterate. It was rich in symbolism, scripturally and doctrinally accurate, and naturally inspiring.

(In fact, many of this world's artistic masterpieces are inspired by religious themes. Some nations focused entirely on sacred art for many generations. Only in more recent history have secular pieces become historically significant and respected.)

That said, I have to admit, at the risk of sounding like an art snob, that I much prefer religious art that depicts actual events or prophecy from holy writ. I'm not as concerned about things religious figures might have done, could be imagined to have done, might possibly be doing now, or could potentially do.

To me, these imaginative forms of sacred art are similar to "quoted" statements from scripture, such as the Savior's reportedly teaching, "I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it." While this statement does not necessarily contradict the Savior's teachings, and while it is possible the Savior actually taught this principle, these words are not contained in any revelation of which I am aware. And yet, they are some of the Savior's most oft-cited words by members of my faith.

There is another intrinsic problem with both invented religious art and imagined sacred citations: while they might be a reflection of the creativity of their authors, to the scripturally illiterate--whether by choice, inexperience, or incapacity--representing imagined situations as real or accurate can be deceptive, misleading, and the source of, for lack of a better term, our religious urban legends.

Furthermore, people will accept, remember, and believe what they see. The human mind is a powerful tool with a great capacity to recall words and images. Once an erroneous piece of information enters our mind, not only must we learn the truth when we encounter it, but we must also forget the wrong information we once learned.

Allow me to illustrate with a couple acute examples. First, this week's Church bulletin had a pencil drawing of the Savior tossing a child above Him in the air. While the image does not contradict the Savior's teachings, it also has no reference to an actual occurrence in the Scriptures.

Second, while the Scriptures teach Christ was baptized by immersion, I have seen art depicting John the Baptist and Christ in the river Jordan with John baptizing Christ by aspersion. I encountered this art as a missionary while attempting to teach about baptism by immersion and following Christ's example, and, needless to say, it had a detrimental effect on my teaching efforts.

Moreover, people have a hard enough time getting the facts straight in so many instances of Scriptural reporting. With different accounts recording slightly different information, the questions surrounding certain stories are understandable and justified. This is even more reason for artists who choose to represent sacred scenes to pay special attention to what they're producing.

This same principle has implications in music that teaches incorrect principles, or anything that does, for that matter.

What are your thoughts?

Fous au volant

A couple weeks ago, I was crossing a busy intersection on my daily route to school. As I was a few minutes late, I looked both ways and began running across the street. I didn't have the right-of-way, but the intersection was clear in the directions of traffic as far away as I could see and our turn to cross the street was next. What's more, another student was just a few steps ahead of me.

As I was almost across the street, a car crested the hill opposite the intersection from where I was crossing at a speed greatly exceeding the steeet's residential speed limit. Floating lightly on its suspension, the car cruised through the intersection, swerving to avoid me. The driver angrily laid on the horn as the light changed in the intersection.

As I reflect on the experience, I realize how close I came to suffering serious bodily injury or death. I recently married, and I couldn't help but think about the heartache such an accident would have caused my dear wife. Should I have run into the road without the right-of-way? In retrospect, it seems more than just foolish or even reckless. But another question has occupied my attention even more the last few weeks:

What's up with the dangerous combination of absent-minded pedestrians and angry drivers in Provo?

I am convinced that Provo has the worst drivers and the most thoughtless pedestrians of any city in America. Pedestrians all over the city cross the street without looking either way. A couple days ago, a girl used a crosswalk at an intersection I was driving through. Staring at her iPod, with her headphones in, she sauntered into the street, ignorant she didn't have the right-of-way. What was she thinking? Cars slowed for her, but she's lucky she didn't get hit. At least in my case I had looked both ways before crossing the street and tried to determine it was safe to do so. This girl didn't even acknowledge the existence of the cars in the street she was crossing.

I'm not sure what causes such absent-mindedness in a city so full of college students. My university is a respectable school with a difficult application and admissions process; how is it we have such a high concentration of thoughtless, selfish individuals?

Before you judge me too judgmental, let me expound. I am of the belief that, despite everything we've been taught and the fact that we should know better, students at this university are essentially selfish individuals. This explains apathy to common-sense safety practices, like looking before crossing a street, as well as the reason my neighbors think it's okay, in their perceived haste, to occupy two spaces in our apartment complex's crowded parking lot. I guess staying between the lines is too much to ask.

Thoughtless interaction between pedestrians and drivers is only exacerbated by police attitudes toward j-walking. In a recent report in my university's newspaper, the local police department was quoted as saying its officers are more prone to ticket drivers not stopping for pedestrians, even when they aren't using crosswalks, than they are to ticket pedestrians for j-walking.

This "carte blanche" the police department has effectively granted pedestrians might be to blame for such deplorable public behavior as crossing (at a crosswalk or otherwise) a street without looking, but what explains other inexcusable lacks of driver etiquette, like never letting anyone in, crossing into the right-hand lane when turning left, turning left well after the arrow has expired, and the ever-unsafe "I'm-letting-you-turn" maneuver? What about all the other directions and lanes of traffic, are they all letting you in?

Has anyone else experienced this, or do I just expect too much from the drivers around me?

From Dating to Marriage

My good friend Eric made an interesting statement recently after breaking up with his then girlfriend. This was around the same time I was getting engaged. Said he: "I'm convinced dating does not lead to marriage."

This comment flew in the face of a lot of advice I've received from a lot of people I respect, people whose advice I value for a multiplicity of reasons. Over the last few weeks, however, as I have thought about my own experience in the world of dating and relationships and as I have heard more than ever about the romantic lives of my single and married friends, I have come to agree more and more with Eric: the act of dating, especially dating in the micro-culture in which I live, does not lead to marriage.

As a student at a private religious university and an active member of my faith, I am subjected--often on a weekly basis--to comments about dating, courtship, and marriage from professors and religious leaders alike. They seem to have one common goal: marry off as many single students as possible before they leave school. Historically, my school's extracurricular and on-campus activities have been calculated to the same end. Dating (going out on dates) is not only encouraged, it's expected.

As a single male student here, I was expected to invite girls out to eat, to see a movie, to go rock climbing, to go mini-golfing, (this list is endless), .... Furthermore, it was socially expected that I would be ready to report on my weekend's activities at Church on Sunday to any one of my ecclesiastical leaders who might inquire.

And so, for three years after my two-year Church service, I asked girls out seemingly every weekend. I'm the kind of guy who does what's expected of him most of the time, unless I have some reason to believe that by so doing I would violate my personal standards. Since the social expectation seemed to be coming from my religious leaders and mentors, I subconsciously filed away dating under practices "ordained of God."

"The Family: A Proclamation to the World," issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued in 1995, clearly states that "marriage...is ordained of God" (see opening paragraph of the proclamation). On a local level (and seemingly more particularly at my university), local Church leaders have sought to interpret this statement to mean that, by extension, dating is ordained of God.

Dating, in and of itself, does not lead to marriage any more than eating Cheerios for breakfast every day for a year leads to marriage. In fact, "dating" in the way the word is thrown around so nonchalantly in our culture is not acceptable in other cultures. And yet, marriage is a part of virtually every society and culture around the world. So how is it others get married if they don't date the way we do?

Before I continue, I would like to concede that I do feel dating can have a place in developing social skills potentially important in a marriage relationship. Moreover, when we date, we learn much about ourselves.

This should not, however, be construed to mean that these social skills and personal revelations cannot be obtained through any other means. Dating might even be the most effective way to develop these skills in our culture, but I know a lot of antisocial boys and girls that wind up married, even before their gregarious, adventurous counterparts.

The way we use the word "dating" often refers to a series of excursions, often on weekend evenings, almost exclusively with one person at a time. (That is, after all, what makes it a date, right?) These serial encounters force us to step out of our comfort zone, which might include not spending time with members of the opposite sex, especially not one on one time. To these ends, dating can build important social skills required in courtship and eventually marriage.

But it seems like the more couples I meet and the more stories I hear, even and especially from my married and engaged friends at my highly fruitful, marriage-producing university, the less I believe that just going on dates will get people married.

Perhaps the reason for encouraging us to date so much is that in our culture, this seems to be an effective way to help us cultivate these social skills. As for the dating itself leading to marriage, however, I'm not convinced.

While I cannot speak for everyone, in my own personal experience, it wasn't until I gave up on dating the way I felt I was being instructed to that I met and married my wife. During our entire courtship, we only went on a couple "dates." What we did spend time doing, however, was being with each other. We spent hours together just sitting and talking on a blanket on the grass outside our apartment complex. It was completely unplanned and natural. It just happened.

In fact, our first (and only, we joke) real date was one day last summer in the late afternoon when Kaela paid me a somewhat unanticipated visit to give me a CD she had made for me. I popped the CD into my computer and we listened to some great music together, then I informed her I was in the mood for Italian food and wondered whether she might be interested in accompanying me to a favorite restaurant in town. We went and had a great time, but again, it was not planned at all.

It was over the course of a couple weeks, but especially that first evening at the restaurant, that I realized how easy it was to talk to Kaela and how comfortable I was around her. I suppose the rest is history, but there's an important lesson to be learned here, and I suppose it's the reason for all this thought: we will not get married, at least certainly not happily married, until we put aside all the angst of the dating game that so many well-intentioned leaders heap upon us and learn to just be ourselves. It sounds simple, but it's the truth. If you are capable of truly being yourself on a first date you're excited about, all the power to you, but I highly doubt that is the case for most of us. Things just have to happen naturally, and until they do, no one will get what he/she really wants out of a marriage relationship.

And so, dating, as we call it, does not lead to marriage. In fact, I submit it's only when we disarm ourselves and the people we might be interested in "dating" and get down to getting to know each other--really know each other, not just some puppy love kind of know each other--that anything will turn out the way we want it to.

As a matter of fact, if you had approached me a year ago and introduced Kaela to me as a girl I might be interested in dating, I would have politely introduced myself to her, made some small talk, and politely excused myself. In so many ways she wasn't what I was looking for, but getting to know her in the way I did made it clear she was everything I never knew I needed and always wanted and more. She completes me, she understands me, she is patient with me; in other words, she just gets me. Being married to her is better than anything I could have imagined or hoped for out of marriage and yet, I think I could count the "dates" we've been on, both during and after courtship, on one hand.