I find little solace in labeling Representative FitzSimmons a “hero” in the activities leading up to the redefinition of marriage. See this article
1- In the short term, it may have looked to be a prudent action for him in an effort to provide some protection for religious entities.
2- It provides no protection for private individuals or companies who oppose the homosexual agenda of acceptance and affirmation of their new lifestyle.
3- It serves to promote diverging understandings of “civil” and “religious” definitions of marriage as well as concedes the argument that marriage can in fact be redefined.
4- The homosexual long term agenda is driven to stamp out all opposition, so it is only a matter of time before intimidation, bigot labeling, lawsuits, and legislative reliefs are started.
I would have a little more sympathy toward the Professor’s viewpoint if Rep. FitzSimmons would have ultimately voted NO after doing all in his power to provide as many protections to marriage as possible, making the bill as obnoxious as possible to the liberal Democrats, and effectively moving some additional votes to the NO column.
In closing, and from a another angle, I find this article especially interesting, as it comes from the viewpoint of an apparently honest atheist.