Droopy, do you remember about a year ago, when I asked you why---if equal protection for gay people is a "liberal" issue---the plaintiffs' attorney in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is well-known as being a conservative?
I don't know. Perhaps the plaintiff's attorney here is a dip in the road. Perhaps he's not really a "conservative" in a substantive intellectual sense (terming certain useful examples (Brooks, Bernake et al, et al) as "conservatives" and then holding others to their standards is a well worn trick I've long grown used to fielding). Perhaps he has personal, emotional or psychological reasons. Do you know? No, I didn't think so.
The one thing I do know is that, from a constitutional and philosophical perspective, homosexual marriage is not an equal protection issue at all. That sophistry is easy to knock out of the ballpark, and I and others have done it time and again.
I would like to see a direct quote from Jesus regarding his feelings about gay people.
Jesus apparently never wrote a book. His apostles, however, did do a great deal of writing, and they, whom Jesus tells us if we do not hear, will not hear him, have made a number of clear statements on the subject, in both ancient and modern times.
Thank you for conceding the point that the LDS Church's banal platitudes about loving gay people and treating them equally as long as they live the law of chastity are in fact nothing but banal platitudes.
Your own personal phantasm regarding the nature of most homosexual relationships, as well as your substantial misunderstandings (or, more likely, willful misconstrual) of the text of the constitution, have painted you into a corner that allows you very, very little intellectual or moral breathing room.