Once again, it is a hollow victory. This fact that they even feel the need to issue a statement like this illustrates that the battle was "won" but at tremendous cost. The church will be paying for this for a long time, IMO.

Yes. Didn't see any bigotry there. But I guess that depends on your definition of the word.

Is the Law of Chastity bigoted? Does that mean we hate heteros who have pre-marital sex? What about the WoW?

The stuff people are willing to call bigotry today disgusts me.

oh come on. let's not get into word-play and semantics. the church was every bit as much a part of the movement as its individual members. it's like telling me i can't pierce the corporate veil even though it is just a ruse. the church condones same sex marriage because it is intolerant and bigotted on that issue. the church is intolerant toward any other opinion than its own and the message that ultimately went out (with members money, but with the church's influence deeply felt) was that or fear of something different and misunderstood, and unfortunately the prejudice being expressed was passive/aggressive and the church would never come straight out and say what it wanted to... that gay people creep us out and disgust us but we don't want to try to understand them or this issue - it's black and white!

i don't know of MANY definitions of bigotry. i'm sure that there's only one... however, if i had to define the concept, i would say it is an unwavering dedication to prejudice irregardless of any argument otherwise.

i dont' have time to grab a dictionary but i would imagine it's something like that.

the church won't meet with gay members on the issue but instead puts out statements that cling to faulty logic and reasoning. bigotted. that they rely on a claim of deity/inspiration doesn't change the application of the term biggoted to the conduct except as a justification - not an exception.

Would you support an amendment prohibiting people who broke the Law of Chastity or Word of Wisdom from marrying? If so, I would say you are a bigot.

very well put, Lebowski.

Oh stop, already. It's a statement that recognizes it's a highly emotional issue, and it was pretty stand-up of them to phrase it that way (not that I would expect anything else).

To listen to you, you'd think the church should roll over anytime it has a position that is unpopular. With that attitude, we never would've made it out of the year 1831.

Those who hear that message are just wallowing in their own anger. They have no interest in understanding the church's position either.

I grow weary of hearing the lame apologetics for the militaristic wing of the gay agenda.

I don't know what was won and what was lost.

The definition of marriage is preserved in California. Okay.

What did the Church lose? Favor with gays? Did it ever have any favor with gays? So, can it lose something it never had?

It invested political capital, and preserved some capital by winning. Had it lost, that would have mattered, because then it would have lost political capital and not won what it sought out to win.

LOL. Thanks for that image.