Listened a few minutes to Rod Arquette on 570AM last night. They were talking about how this issue affects the religious power over their own "definition of sin" being taken from their hands and put in the hands of politicians.
Used to be, in Roman times and other nations, "religion" was a tool of governance just like modern education is today. But under the concepts of the American Revolution, with the State being restricted from top-down public management, things could be different. . . .
The reason people set up "churches" could be all about the "Freedom of Assembly", the right of people to associate with others based on their own judgments, desires, and moral definitions. Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech and the declaration that Federal Government shall not have the power to set up a State-Sanctioned Religion should pretty well mean the Federal Government should not be in this mud bath, nor in the Education business. Neither should the State Governments be setting up social standards of the class that do not protect life, liberty, property, speech, individually-chosen relationships/contracts, organizations based on voluntary associations, etc etc etc etc.
Protecting children from incest, forced marriages to "authorities" of any kind. .. . from being propagandized by marxists and other social agenda pushers on the state dollar. . . . . yeah that's what a good government should do.
I might still think gays are mentally stunted and irresponsibly displacing long-term priorities with short-term decisions to avoid challenges to personal development which would lead to a better life. Anyone who wants to define themselves on a single issue is mentally stunting their own growth. But when I run for office, I say the government has no right to treat any people different, and would re-write the laws to make that happen. What you have to look for in legislation is protection of individuals and groups from harm or "management agendas" not of their own choosing. . . . and procedures of governance that don't impose hardships on any "class", or benefits on "influential" individuals or groups. . . . equal rights under the laws.
And "progressives" who are buying the current global propaganda fads which are being exploited to increase state power are pretty much being used, manipulated, and turned into mental midgets, too. Amazing how similar today's "progressives" are with the feudal liege class of peasant overlords in Medieval Europe. . . yup get out there in the Kings' forest and make sure nobody is cutting wood or taking game to feed themselves, y'all. Make sure nobody can earn enough to build their own castle. . . yeah. . . . make all the peasants live in mud huts with grass roofs and thresh floors infested with rats, and pay 50% of their harvest to the Lords. . . . yeah. . . . that's "social justice" all right. . . .
Gays who are all about making the government the vehicle for legislating morals and social standards for people are short-sighted. If we continue to accept government having that kind of power, all it takes is 51% of the voters to legislate any moral or social agenda. . . . . including "fixing" gays or "deviants" of any kind. . . . say "Mormons" included, in "re-education camps" staffed by ideological or religious zealots wearing jack-boots and holding "panel" meetings about who gets to live or die.
I have to admit, I was one who believed the LDS Church would be all onboard with just letting legislated laws determine their doctrines and acceptance criteria, and it is refreshing to me to see some LDS wanting to stand up and publicly discuss the impacts of progressive ideological fads on their morals, and their existence as an organization of believers in a particular family concept. . . . not so much refreshing to see them empowered to write the definition of "family" for the State.
It's as unconstitutional for a church to use the State as a vehicle for enforcement of a moral code as it would be for a particular group of sexual fadists to make the State enforce their codes on others. In deeds or speech.
