Following are a few postmortem thoughts regarding the demise of SB1062:

One of the first questions I would like to ask is why did Republicans rush to be part of a nationwide conservative push to enact a statute which offered little if any legal cover regarding gay marriage? Did they even consider the possibility discrimination might be involved?

Proponents constantly talked about the need to protect those with deeply held religious convictions. If a person merely stated, “I’m a Christian,” would that have met the threshold of “deeply held” or would they have had to produce a baptismal certificate and a record of church attendance? What else?

In my lifetime I have known individuals who followed Jesus’ teachings but had little use for organized religion. I have also known people who were great church goers, said all the right things, yet their actions were in direct conflict with their words.

Attempting to legally identify those with “sincere and honest” beliefs would be an exercise in frustration and lead to much controversy considering the many and varied interpretations of biblical content. Further, trying to codify the specific religious beliefs of one segment of society over another as a stand-alone thought process does not take into consideration the broader issue of “equality.”

I wonder how The Religious would have treated John Q. Citizen under this statute if he had stood on a street corner and boldly proclaimed “I am an atheist!”

Ann and I are proud to say we are members of The Fountains, a United Methodist Church, which openly welcomes and provides a meeting place for gay members of our community and their parents.

And yes, for the record, we too have deeply held religious convictions!

Can I hear an amen?