I will remove the article or combine it into an updated blog-post… Probably the latter.

I hope Randy chooses to leave the article for archival and historical perspective and instead updates it to reflect his current position.

Even when my perspectives shift on an issue, I prefer that my history be there to remind me that as certain as I may be today on some notion, time has a way of revising both my opinion and my recollection that I ever held it.

You’re right. That ‘base is covered’ by the fact that they were in a private and consensual adult setting.

When I first mentioned this in the Spotlights last year, I wrote that I was concerned about Christians picking up this battle without remembering the human side of those they oppose. The concern was that the war of words would get in the way of presenting the gospel and respecting individuals dignity. After much reflection and more research it does appear that if the Supreme court overturns this case it could be a watershed event in redefining the family. Therefore, in the realm of public dialog, the possibility of overturning the laws deserves opposition from those of us who want to defend our beliefs as they pertain to Biblical models of relationships. Of course it is up to the reader on how to make their views known.

The above is full context of the quote from 4/1/2003. The bolded part is what was left out of Lynn’s quote in the above comment.

I quite frequently state that there are some things I have said in the past (along public policy lines), that I wished I had not. The conjecture about the case above is one of them. My opinion on Lawrence v. Texas changed a long time ago. I am glad the court struck it down. I apologize for not following up when my opinion did indeed change.

I will remove the article or combine it into an updated blog-post… Probably the latter. Thanks for the reminder… I had forgotten about that. Reading the quote from the FRC link upsets me too. Rest assured, that is no where near where I am at today or even five or six of the past seven years.

But I do uphold what I said about everyone deserving dignity and respect.

I left off the first part of his paragraph as it simply did not appear to have any bearing on his final conclusion to support the Texas law.

Eddy…. Uh oh! Seems like we left ‘fines’ off the list. (The penalty in the US based case of Lawrence v Texas was not imprisonment, mistreatment or death; it was a $200 fine.)

Well, when Alan Chambers wrote:

Exodus International opposes the criminalization of homosexual behavior as conducted by consensual adults in private.

That would have taken care of any fine. Whether for a felony or misdemeanor a fine could only be assessed if the act of homogenic sex was criminalized.