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

[_rcrocket]

I haven't seen anything with regard to the Witherspoon report you site, so I won't comment on it. I can say, however, that bigotry is one of many features of sociological thinking. "Is" does not equal "ought to."

That's OK. Several folks on this board reject books out of hand without knowing their contents.

And, no, I don't base my opinion on political expediency. I base it upon the rationale offered by Obama, Biden and the Clintons as well as a major sociological study on the issue.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Has the Church ever tried to take away a fundamental constitutional right of a fornicator or adulterer? Enough said.

Has the church ever had a reasonable chance of getting it passed?

I had no idea that God's Will was based on political considerations.

The church is happy to let repentant sinners remarry ....

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 ....

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"? You have illustrated perfectly why the Church's participation in all this was so very wrong.

[_Jason Bourne]

The 5th paragraph: "The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony." (emphasis added). This religious dogma forms the basis for the Church's heavy involvement to remove a fundamental civil right under the CA state constitution from a targeted segment of society (i.e., homosexuals). in my opinion, religious objections to civil gay marriage, a state sanctioned and state regulated institution, have no place in constitutional principles and application. This is bigotry at its worst.

Dictionary.com defines bigotry as:

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

So your view is the Church is intolerant of gays and seeks to deny a gay person the right to marry,even if they do not want to deny other civil rights, it is bigotry.

Hmmm

Let me think about it.

[_rcrocket]

This is bigotry at its worst.

That's just disingenuous ipse dixit.

Until May 2008 marrriage between homosexuals was not a constitutional right in California or in the feds. Status quo was restored in November 2008.

"Civil rights" are not inaliable rights; they come and go. They are what the civil government says they are. California has a long history of passing initiatives which strip persons of one civil right or another. Some day victims of murders will be stripped of their right to see murderers put to death. (Actually, that happened in California, but then an initiative passed restoring the death penalty. One group of people lost their civil rights (to live), another group gained (to obtain retribution)).

[_Some Schmo]

I haven't seen anything with regard to the Witherspoon report you site, so I won't comment on it. I can say, however, that bigotry is one of many features of sociological thinking. "Is" does not equal "ought to."

That's OK. Several folks on this board reject books out of hand without knowing their contents.

Funny, I don't remember saying I rejected it. In fact, I remember saying I wouldn't comment on it. Did you miss that?

And, no, I don't base my opinion on political expediency. I base it upon the rationale offered by Obama, Biden and the Clintons as well as a major sociological study on the issue.

So you're not going to actually offer a rational reason to be against gay marriage. You're just going to rely on other people's opinions and call them your own. Alrighty then.

That's OK. Several folks in the church reject thinking for themselves out of hand without knowing what they're really buying into.

[_rcrocket]

That's OK. Several folks in the church reject thinking for themselves out of hand without knowing what they're really buying into.

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.

[_Some Schmo]

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.

I suppose we'll have to take your word for it.

I must admit, I've been more encouraged in the past.

[_rcrocket]

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.

I suppose we'll have to take your word for it.

I must admit, I've been more encouraged in the past.

Why don't you just read the Witherspoon report and comment upon it? I have cited it in this board a couple of times.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Until May 2008 marrriage between homosexuals was not a constitutional right in California or in the feds.

So what? The CA Supreme Court recognized that gay couples have the fundamental constitutional right to marry.

Status quo was restored in November 2008.

I've never heard the stripping of a fundamental constitutional right referred to as 'a return to status quo.'

"Civil rights" are not inaliable rights; they come and go.

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.

They are what the civil government says they are.

No. The courts do.

California has a long history of passing initiatives which strip persons of one civil right or another. Some day victims of murders will be stripped of their right to see murderers put to death.

Sorry. but this is not a fundamental constitutional right. Keep trying ....

(Actually, that happened in California, but then an initiative passed restoring the death penalty. One group of people lost their civil rights (to live), another group gained (to obtain retribution)).

Nothing undergoes greater scrutiny than capital punishment, so the right to life remains a fundamental and constitutional right (subject to very rigorous scrutiny). In contrast, the right to "retribution" is not a fundamental constitutional right. Keep trying, counselor.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Dictionary.com defines bigotry as:

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

So your view is the Church is intolerant of gays and seeks to deny a gay person the right to marry,even if they do not want to deny other civil rights, it is bigotry.

Hmmm

Let me think about it.

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.