Just because a judge is an activist judge, does not make him a 
thoughtful one. Nor does it make him right. Nor does it mean he is 
following the Constitution.  If they were to gage Constitutionality by 
the standard set by our Founding Fathers, they would have no question on 
the issue of homosexuality. In fact, they probably would have to 
reinstitute laws against it!

It is my belief that the prophecy sometimes given to Joseph Smith, but 
definitely stated by Pres Benson, that the Constitution would hang by a 
thread and if it is to be saved it will be by the Elders of Israel, 
refers to homosexuality. John Adams and others have stated that the 
Constitution is for a moral people and none other. If we allow 
homosexuality to be normalized, then we will be giving up our moral 
clarity in exchange for a claim to freedom (in reality: licentiousness). 
 We may as well claim freedom for molesting children and animals as to 
use this lame expression for homosexuality. Pres Packer once taught that 
we cannot use one virtue to beat up on another. Claims of freedom cannot 
be used to destroy other virtues, at least not without divine 
consequence. I believe the Church is standing up on this issue in many 
places because it is the key to saving the Constitution for a moral 
people, and for leaving it with some boundaries within which freedom can 
be enjoyed.

Gary Smith

Ron Scott wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:10 AM
> >Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
> >
> >
> >At 05:24 PM 3/22/2004, Ron Scott wrote in response to
> >Jim Cobabe:
> >
> >> >Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for
> >> >legitimate and
> >> >traditional marriage.  Nothing in the constitution
> >> >envisions the
> >> >degraded definition of "marriage" that encompasses any
> >> >particular union
> >> >of convenience, affection, devotion, or animal
> >> >attraction. <
> >>
> >>It seems that some equally thoughtful judges in
> >Massachusetts and
> >>elsewhere disagree with you.  By proposing the constitutional
> >>amendment, the proposers themselves and supporters
> >indicate that
> >>they too don't agree with you.
> >
> >Obviously these "thoughtful judges" are simply
> >wrong--in light of the
> >Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim.
> Must I point out to you, of all people, that church teachings are
> not part of the U.S. Constitution, which is the guide that judges
> have pledged to support and uphold. It's quite obvious that the
> those who support the amendment also believe that the U.S.
> Constitution does not give judges sufficient guidance on the
> matter. Otherwise, an amendment would not be necessary.

Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Reply via email to