At 08:46 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:30 AM
>Subject: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
>I believe President Hinkley's remarks on this issue
>succinctly and
>precisely outline the present direction of church
>policy on the marriage
>controversy.  The church is actively pursuing every
>means to defend
>traditional marriage, including representation in the
>courts and support
>for individual and group efforts to oppose the
>legalization of same-sex
>marriage.  It would seem that we are not justified in
>failing to pursue
>these efforts, regardless of our regard for the chance
>of success or
>failure.  President Hinckley explains our rationale for
>such efforts --

It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so to me. I DO
NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for opposing it do
not include (at this point) supporting a constitutional amendment
defining **marriage.** Likewise, I supported the *general aims*
of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment but I DID NOT support
passage of the amendment itself because I believed that the
constitutional protections  and entitlements for all (including
women) were already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Regards
the marriage isisue: I think the constitution as written is
satisfactory and provides opportunities to craft laws that honor
religious beliefs and honor the protections/entitlements afforded
all by our constitution.


But I thought you did support same sex civil unions. Am I wrong?

Steven Montgomery

We will not despair, for the cause of human freedom is the cause of God.
--Joshua R. Giddings

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:

Reply via email to