Jerome, church law is as complicated as it gets. I had one of those cases once when I practiced law, and its pure torture.

I've already said what I feel about the "gay" issue in the campaign, but what I feel doesn't matter. What is going to happen if the Democrats raise this issue, is that the average joe, who is the "swing vote", is going to be turned off and the Democrats are going to lose that vote. The people who are interested in what I call the "gay issue" are going to vote Democrat anyway. Why hurt them and the candidate (and the Democrats) by raising the issue, because by raising it, they are going to lose many votes that they might get otherwise. If the Democrats try to ride this horse, they are going to lose the election.

Which reminds me of an old joke (so old it pre-dates Vatican II):

In a deeply Catholic neighborhood live a lone Jew. Every Friday while the Catholics sit down to eat their mandated meals of fish, the Jew is out in his backyard barbecuing steaks and amazing beef ribs. Tortured by the aroma, his neighbors complain and beg him to convert to Catholicism so that he, too, would be enjoined from eating meat on Fridays.

For years they beg him, to no avail. But finally the Jew gives in. His excited neighbors drag him off to the church where the priest immediately performs the conversion. He shakes holy water on the Jew while intoning "Born a Jew, raised a Jew, now a Catholic." And the whole neighborhood breaks out in cheers.

But the next Friday, the Jew is out back barbecuing again. His neighbors smell it and begin to gather along his backyard fence in some agitation. "Hey!" yells on of them. "You can't eat meat on Fridays!"

The Jew turns to the enormous sirloin sizzling on the grill and intones "Born a cow, raised a cow, now a fish!"

On a serious note, though, the Mormon practice of converting people after they're dead is as silly as it is obnoxious. Frankly, given the Jewish view of life and after-life, I can't see the Jews doing much more than laughing at the Mormons over this one. And given that one of the central tenets of conversion in all of the christian faiths I know of is that the convert must be sincere in his wish to convert--a qualiy hitherto unobserved in dead people--it should make the practice at best questionable even within Mormon circles. (As best I know, Mormon wannabes who have the misfortune of still being alive have quite a few hoops to jump through before they can qualify.)

You're right though, its insignificant and silly to make a big deal out of this issue. In my self imposed complicated life, I have so many other things to worry about that this issue doesn't interest me. On the other hand, the "average jane or joe", for whatever her or his reason, thinks its a big deal and its going to be a big deal in the election.
It wil cost a LOT of votes.

Its going to take ten or fifteen or twenty years for people to get over their prejudices. Perhaps the Democrats think its worth "four more years" to take the moral high ground.

Howard Dean says he wants to have an inclusive platform.
However, you don't do that by throwing divisive issues at the voters.
To make my point, all one needs to do is look at the Episcopal church. They are hugely divided over an even simpler issue than gay marriage.

In my opinion, thats devisiveness, and a campaign needs to run on inclusiveness.

The Republicans are just bigots on this one, so the votes are easy to get, but they are just as easy to lose and its a shame to just give them to the Republicans.

In defense of Mormon practices: They create extensive records of all of these long-gone people and share the data with genealogists.

Joy

Joy makes an important point. All of us have our preconcieved biases and prejudices, that comes from being human human, (I could comment on Rev. Nock's thesis, but I won't).

Lets stick to political attack.
When we get into the religious arena, we may be setting ourselves up to lose votes.

Many Catholics have their criticisms of the pope, but when someone outside the religion starts knocking him, they don't like it.

Lets keep it political.

There's plenty to discuss about without getting into religion attack, and it doesn't help to alienate large groups of people whose motives are usually good.

Damn, bad proofreading on my part, I'm with you again Tom.

However, let me qualify my statement, I forgot about the theme for Jerome's website. I think everyone will condede that Galileo was right.

This is my first post. I check in here every now and then for the witty banter back and forth and I saw this post. I know this is off topic for the objective of the site but I thought I would respond from a Mormon point of view.

In response to Derelicts statement, “the Mormon practice of converting people after they're dead is as silly as it is obnoxious.” There is no Mormon practice of “converting” people after they are dead. Baptism for the dead is a vicarious ordinance but it does not convert. We believe that every spirit for whom it is done has the choice to accept or reject this baptism. Much like everyone has the choice to accept or reject the vicarious Atonement that Christ did for us. The doctrine of baptism for the dead is so that all people will have a chance at baptism, an ordinance the Jesus taught was absolutely necessary for entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. When Christ Himself was baptized, He explained that He was doing so "to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:15) He told Nicodemus, a Pharisee, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

A merciful God provides a way that all His children can learn of His gospel. Since repentance and baptism by water as well as by the Spirit are essential to salvation, how will the millions who have never heard the gospel, who have never had an opportunity either to repent or to be baptized enter into the kingdom of God? We know that the gospel is being taught to those that have died in mortality, but their spirits live on in the Spirit World.

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
(1 Peter 4:6)

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
(1 Peter 3:18-9)

We know that they will rise again in the resurrection, as will all:

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
(1 Corinthians 15:29)

They are baptized so that they can rise again in the resurrection and enjoy the blessings that Jesus Christ has promised to them.

You may want to see this issue from the point of view of a Jew. Here is a link to an article from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36329

Thanks for your post, Mark. It's always helpful to hear from someone who actually knows something about topic under discussion. I agree with the rabbI that Jews are reaching pretty hard in regarding this stuff as an outrage. By taking it seriously, they sign onto your beliefs and trivialize their own. I don't agree with his larger point, though. Stripped of theological camouflage, it boils down to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Theologically this is meaningless; politically and diplomatically it is seldom workable; morally, it is at best dubious and at worst it leads to unspeakable horrors. The careers of Henry Kissinger and his wannabe, Zbigniew Brzezinski, are instructive in this regard.