This may possibly be the most sensible thing ever said on this blog. ”

That blog isn’t that bad.

As I keep saying (and as I said I wish the First Presidency would figure out) this is about political posturing, not about marriage or gays or anything else. The vote was on cloture, to make certain that the amendment didn’t actually come to a real vote. Unless they really want the issue to come to a head, the Senate leadership on the Republican side excuses the Senators who might take political fallout by voting in favor. There are Senators who might like to vote in favor of the actual amendment, but the whip told them they’re excused because it would come back to bite them in the fall. And there are Senators who might like to vote against the actual amendment who were told sorry, you’re in a safe race so you get to take one for the team.

So you can’t tell all that much about who is for this and who is against this based on this vote. (Frankly, you wouldn’t be able to tell all that much about who is for this and who is against it based on an acutal up or down vote, either). That’s how legislatures work, friends.

Not yet. Now is the time for political junkies to start overanalyzing.

Republicans picked up 5 seats in the Senate, but the FMA picks up only 1 vote in the process. So even electing Republicans doesn’t move this amendment. If I were on the other side, I would be peeing my pants in frustration.

This may possibly be the most sensible thing ever said on this blog.

But — If some mechanism could be found for a person to determine such partial inspiration to be more inspired than not, I suppose for practical purposes it could be accounted for as being inspired? Or, alternately, for what’s less inspired than not, as uninspired? And, should be no way be found to weight it towards one direction or the other, for the individual to remain neutral as to the question of its inspiration then?

Jim F., a person not favoring resolving the issue by amendment would be in harmony with the letter but out of harmony with prior Church statements that an amendment is needed. While some of Nate O’s objections to this particular amendment are not objections per se to any amendment of the sort the Church wants, some of them are, and certainly most of the objections that have been expressed on the Bloggernacle are. But I do agree that its not sophistry to read the letter as not absolutely requiring support for the current amendment (though I do think it requires contacting the Senators). I don’t think its the best reading, but its not sophistry. Its plausible.

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/why-i-favor-gay-marriage/#comment-53858