> Right, and then before we know it, the church will be constrained by > the state to marry rednecks with their dogs across the temple > altar. Seriously, this is about as ``slippery slope'' as one could get > and is purely alarmist; it assumes an imposition of additional > governmental interference.
For what it is worth, I agree with you on the marriage debate. I think the state should stay out of it all together. I was merely explaining, from a political standpoint, why I feel the church takes the stand it does on gay marriage initiatives. I don't wholly agree with it since it is kind of alarmist. However, when it comes to assuming some kind of government interference I don't think that you can really under-estimate what will happen. (i.e. the recent eminent domain ruling, DMCA, the proposed INDUCE act, etc...) .===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `==================================='
