CA Supreme Court agrees to review Prop. 8 ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Nope. I based my reasons upon statistical studies and conclusions derived therefrom as well as certain secular reasoning based upon natural law. I have cited the basis. I guess you can say what you want about what I believe; a mind reader.

And the Brethren's call to you (and CA saints) to do all you could to help pass Prop. 8 had nothing to do with your support?

[_Jason Bourne]

My dictionary defines "bigotry" by referring to a "bigot," who is defined as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." My reading of the Church's "single, undeviating standard" seems to fit that definition perfectly.

So if the Church held to that standard as far as the Church not sanctioning gay marriage for Church members but did not work to impose that view on the rest of society is it bigotry then? Is that not in essence the position they had on the blacks and priesthood but still they were accused of bigotry. So if gay marriage is legal and the Church denied membership and priesthood to gays will they then be accused of bigotry?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So if the Church held to that standard as far as the Church not sanctioning gay marriage for Church members but did not work to impose that view on the rest of society is it bigotry then?

Yes, but like us all, the Church has the constitutional right to be a collective bigot without fear of government interference.

Is that not in essence the position they had on the blacks and priesthood but still they were accused of bigotry.

The Church was racist even though it didn't try to take constitutional rights away from blacks.

So if gay marriage is legal and the Church denied membership and priesthood to gays will they then be accused of bigotry?

Yes, but the Church has the constitutional right to be a bigot, just like we all do.

[_asbestosman]

But plenty (if not most) of fornicators and adulterers don't repent, but the Church still doesn't try to take away their constitutional rights. Go figure ....

The government doesn't grant their sins special status complete with benefits. Apples to oranges. Besides, last I checked there is no constitutional right to fornication or adultery. If there were, I'm sure the church would be much more willing to consider a constitutional ammendment for that too.

Fornicators and adulterers have an easier time forsaking their sins and enjoying constitutional rights without repeating their sinful behavior.

Are you serious? Only the penitent are allowed to "enjoy constitutional rights"?

I'm serious that fornicators and adulterers have an easier time forsaking their sins. I didn't say they should be deprived of constitutional rights because of it. Even murderers get constitutional rights. I was thinking more about how the church views sins in general. I don't think a specific constitutional right should be created to reward sinners with a special status and benefits. If that happens, I imagine the church would feel that's an important issue as well.

Don't be coy. This is the first time I know of when a fundamental constitutional right has been taken away from a targeted segment of society.

It's also the first time that sin was granted special governmental status complete with a benefits package.

[_asbestosman]

Yes, but like us all, the Church has the constitutional right to be a collective bigot without fear of government interference.

Unlike eHarmony.

[_Dr. Shades]

It's also the first time that sin was granted special governmental status complete with a benefits package.

Don't you get it? If they could be married, it wouldn't be sin anymore.

[_asbestosman]

Don't you get it? If they could be married, it wouldn't be sin anymore.

And if blasphemy, gluttony, and greed were legal they wouldn't be sins anymore either, right?

[_cinepro]

Don't you get it? If they could be married, it wouldn't be sin anymore.

And if blasphemy, gluttony, and greed were legal they wouldn't be sins anymore either, right?

If the "morality" of blasphemy, gluttony, and greed were determined solely by their status as legal or illegal, then you would be right.

[_Dr. Shades]

And if blasphemy, gluttony, and greed were legal they wouldn't be sins anymore either, right?

Correct. They're all legal, and none of them are sins.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The government doesn't grant their sins special status complete with benefits.

You just don't get it. It's not the government's job to say what is and what is not "sin." "Sin" is not the basis for constitutional rights. Equal protection under law has nothing to do with "sin" or other religious beliefs or objections.

Besides, last I checked there is no constitutional right to fornication or adultery.

There sure is. It's called the right to privacy. This is why there are no longer laws against fornication, sodomy, adultery, etc., like there used to be. The gov't has no jurisdiction in a citizen's bedroom.

If there were, I'm sure the church would be much more willing to consider a constitutional ammendment for that too.

Where was the Church when the court were overturning the very laws outlawing fornication and adultery? Where was the Church after Roe v. Wade? Again, is it your position that the Church follows God's Will only when it is politically expedient to do so? So much for "standing for something."

Are you serious? Only the penitent are allowed to "enjoy constitutional rights"?

I'm serious that fornicators and adulterers have an easier time forsaking their sins. I didn't say they should be deprived of constitutional rights because of it.

You connected repentance and enjoyment of constitutional rights -- in our system of constitutional law there is NO such connection.

I don't think a specific constitutional right should be created to reward sinners with a special status and benefits.

Once again: THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF "SIN." If that's what you want, then we should emulate Iran or some other theocracy.

It's also the first time that sin was granted special governmental status complete with a benefits package.

Once again for those who just don't get it: THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF "SIN."