When I first mentioned this in the Spotlights last year, I wrote that I was concerned about Christians picking up this battle without remembering the human side of those they oppose. The concern was that the war of words would get in the way of presenting the gospel and respecting individuals dignity. After much reflection and more research it does appear that if the Supreme court overturns this case it could be a watershed event in redefining the family. Therefore, in the realm of public dialog, the possibility of overturning the laws deserves opposition from those of us who want to defend our beliefs as they pertain to Biblical models of relationships. Of course it is up to the reader on how to make their views known.

The above is full context of the quote from 4/1/2003. The bolded part is what was left out of Lynn’s quote in the above comment.

I quite frequently state that there are some things I have said in the past (along public policy lines), that I wished I had not. The conjecture about the case above is one of them. My opinion on Lawrence v. Texas changed a long time ago. I am glad the court struck it down. I apologize for not following up when my opinion did indeed change.

I will remove the article or combine it into an updated blog-post… Probably the latter. Thanks for the reminder… I had forgotten about that. Reading the quote from the FRC link upsets me too. Rest assured, that is no where near where I am at today or even five or six of the past seven years.

But I do uphold what I said about everyone deserving dignity and respect.

I left off the first part of his paragraph as it simply did not appear to have any bearing on his final conclusion to support the Texas law.

It’s just a little too bad that Uganda and her gay citizens had to be the proving ground for this statement by Exodus. It seems that Lawrence v. Texas would have been the trigger for such a statement. But it was then that Randy Thomas wrote in Exodus news:

After much reflection and more research it does appear that if the Supreme court overturns this case it could be a watershed event in redefining the family. Therefore, in the realm of public dialog, the possibility of overturning the laws deserves opposition from those of us who want to defend our beliefs as they pertain to Biblical models of relationships. Of course it is up to the reader on how to make their views known.

And in support of that position Thomas provided a link to an FRC article about their brief supporting criminalization. The FRC claimed:

The law has historically respected and protected the marital union and has distinguished it from acts outside that union, such as fornication, adultery and sodomy. To extend homosexual sodomy the same protections given to the marital union would undermine the definition of marriage and could lead to homosexual marriage.
.
In order to recognize a non-textual Constitutional right to sodomy, the Court must find sodomy to be deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. In fact, laws banning sodomy are deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.
.
Protecting marriage, upholding morality, and seeking to ensure public health is more than enough for Texas to prove it has a “rational basis” behind its law. Homosexual sodomy is the number one vehicle for the transmission in America of the HIV virus, and given all the ramifications HIV/AIDS has on public health, Texas is surely justified is seeking to curtail its continued progression.

What has changed in the intervening seven years? Certainly not the Christian religion.

It’s certainly no longer up for any legitimate debate, but otherwise I’m not so sure. I seem to recall several times in recent years (including very recently) some people claiming that sodomy is illegal. I assume they are from states that still had sodomy laws when Lawrence v. Texas overturned them, and that those states may still have them on the books. Maybe they are dreaming that L.v.T. will be overturned one day.

I don’t have any web pages to cite. Nor do I have time to look for any.

good question.

I think that perhaps Alan may slowly be coming around to the point where he accepts some of the common language. Or at least I hope so.

I thought Exodus claims that there is no such thing as a homosexual “sexual orientation”. That homosexual describes a “behavior” rather than an orientation.

Does this mean that they are moving in the right direction on this issue too?

I’ll work against type and will join the congratulations to Exodus for realizing that there is more to Love than meets the eye and ear.