Everyone who knows the debate knows the intended and actual effect this amendment will have. It will remove the ability of churches and pastors to decide whether to accept practicing, unrepentant homosexuals as members.
Good legislation-- and especially an amendment-- should be clear, specific and unambiguous about its purpose and outcomes. Since this is the intended and actual effect, why not state it accurately? Again, because it has been tried and has failed multiple times.
This amendment is not primarily about being open to all. It is primarily about forcing congregations and pastors to accept practicing homosexuals as members.
However, it has been intentionally couched in these vague terms of "inclusivity for all" because multiple attempts to change church teaching on homosexuality have failed. To pretend this is not about homosexuality is to be completely disingenuous, and to anyone familiar with the background history of this amendment, completely laughable.
Everyone who knows the debate knows the intended and actual effect this amendment will have. It will remove the ability of churches and pastors to decide whether to accept practicing, unrepentant homosexuals as members.
Good legislation-- and especially an amendment-- should be clear, specific and unambiguous about its purpose and outcomes. Since this is the intended and actual effect, why not state it accurately? Again, because it has been tried and has failed multiple times.
scientastic 2 years ago
This amendment is not primarily about being open to all. It is primarily about forcing congregations and pastors to accept practicing homosexuals as members.
However, it has been intentionally couched in these vague terms of "inclusivity for all" because multiple attempts to change church teaching on homosexuality have failed. To pretend this is not about homosexuality is to be completely disingenuous, and to anyone familiar with the background history of this amendment, completely laughable.
scientastic 2 years ago