In the case of Huffington Post, they actually announced it as having passed, then removed the article from the website and replaced it with the religious exemption announcement. I saved both articles for posterity, because the first one is no longer available on the site. Now, there's a longer version of the first article that replaced both previous articles, which I have also saved.

^ I think you're misreading, Mitch.

Ditto. I think it's being misread too. The way I look at it the casting the first stone refers to
Before you go and judge someone else, get your own house in order and MYODB!

I'm SO stoked this passed. It's about damn time

I don't think he's misreading. We should say what we mean instead of using imprecise idioms which could be harmful more than helpful.

No offense to sceniczip, of course.

Yep. I'll go ahead and open the can of worms: There are people that believe that being gay is sinful. Honestly, I don't think it's any more appropriate to try and change their minds on that then them trying to convince someone that they shouldn't be gay. In the end, as long as either side aren't violating someone else's right to choose what they believe, what difference does it make? You can still love and respect someone without agreeing with all of their beliefs and choices, and we aren't the ones with final judgement anyway.

I agree.

Saying "let 'he' who is without sin cast the first stone" is completely different than saying "homosexuality is not a sin."

I am okay being friends/respecting people who believe that homosexual acts are sinful, provided their attitudes toward it are the same as toward anything else they consider sinful (lying, not giving enough to charity, etc.). I disagree with them, but we can agree to disagree, the same as we might agree to disagree about any number of other topics. I refuse to be friends with anyone who believes that being homosexual in and of itself is a sin. That's beyond my limit of tolerance.

I agree. I shouldn't be expected to tolerate someone who doesn't accept me.

I don't agree with the distinction between being of a particular sexual orientation and the acts. Just as there are heterosexuals who do not act on it for whatever reasons, there are homosexuals who do not act on it. However, the freedom to act on it in a consensual manner and "go beyond the bedroom" is what this is about as far as I'm concerned. When people say "I'm fine with it as long as 'they' keep it away from me and I don't have to see it," I just cringe and I think about when I was younger and felt the same way because I was going based on what I was raised to believe.

With that said, I would lose many friends and family if I refused to be close to people who believe homosexuality itself is a sin. That includes those who believe homosexual acts are a sin because I think it's impossible to be openminded to an orientation if you believe that acting on the orientation is a sin.

So, I will continue to love and interact with my family and friends who believe that all of it is a sin and I will continue to respond when they make comments around me. They are free to feel however they feel and to express it; and so am I. That's how my family, friends, and I operate.

This.
If you choose to tolerate someone with those views, because they are family, or whatever it is one thing, but it is not an obligation to offer 'respect' to someone who condemns who you are.

It's quite a bit easier when one is not a member of the targeted population to 'tolerate' bigotry. And yet it is the minority itself that is expected to 'tolerate' the most. At some point it's just not healthy.

/not out to family because I don't at this point want to face that.

YEAH NEW YORK! Cali should be right behind...hopefully!

The problem with bigotry is it has become political. When gay marriage is no longer a political issue and more of a personal opinion then it becomes easier to separates the bigots from the others.

Nah, I disagree. I think it's pretty easy to tell. There's an underlying bigotry in even the political positions. Kind of similar to the underlying misogyny and classism in cutting funding to Planned Parenthood when none of the funding goes towards abortions. It's not really political it's ideological and it's still bigotry.

it's too bad the governnment feels it has any business in marriage at all.

Is it misogyny, or is it "Because this side supports it, I'm gonna vilify it so I can get elected?"