Sign up for our newsletter

   

Signed up, but still not getting our newsletter? Click here.

 

December 15, 2019

Comments | Return to Story

MIBJuly 5, 2015

Part of the issue is that the LGBT will not let this "progress" stand. They will continue to push further into the destruction of traditional families through educational programs in schools where children should not have to learn such things at the ages gay topics are pushed. They need to be opposed at every level in every way possible (within the law) and new laws need to be passed to protect what little dignity is left in this country. People of moral values need to stand up and stop any further promotion or "progress" of the LGBT movement, and do all we can to reverse what has happened before it's too late. Also, I believe, congress has the ability to impeach judges as well, so they should take action when a judge does not support the constitution and get that judge out of the supreme court.

kmtownJuly 4, 2015

I have read with interest this and many articles about what to do. Frankly I am concerned that the soft answers we give will not turn away the wrathful and false accusations that have been given--and that have been accepted. It is no surprise that Stonewall is seen as the point when the LGBT movement began in interest, and that their supporters today look to that riot for inspiration, a point where they said "no more". So where is the "no more" point for those who support religious freedom? Do the supporters of religious liberty need a Stonewall moment of their own?

Michael ChopinJuly 4, 2015

They did not need to do this since white is representative of all colors already. Someone asked me once what are the colors of the American Flag. My quick response was "red and blue". She paused expectantly and then with a hand gesture said...and? I replied, "red and blue...white is not a color but rather a collective representation of all colors combined." Since there was no real need for this 'gesture' (this light show), I can only assume that it is their intent to convey an altogether different message, vis: What they are saying here with this waste of tax payer money and resources is that the light that reflects off of the White House, when focused into the prism of the Supreme Court, is dispersed and divided into distinct and varying wave-lengths. Individuals no longer have the right to act as their own prisms and intercept the natural light and interpret it for themselves. Instead, the light will now reflect off of the White House where it will then be intercepted by the Supreme Court where it then will be distributed to people of their choosing and then never more than any one wave-length to any one person or rather, group mentality. This is a gesture of division and not unification. They will then have to alter the oath one takes when asked to give testimony in court to read: "Do you swear to tell truth, our truth, and nothing but the part-truth that we permit you access to?" So help you God will have long since been removed by that time. You are no longer allowed to listen to the still-small voice of the light, they are saying...it is a reasonable assessment considering the situation. Instead of the light coming unto the worthy, it is their desire to harness it and dole it out to whom they choose...they will fail in this.

ADD A COMMENT

  • INSPIRATION FOR LIVING A LATTER-DAY SAINT LIFE

    Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.