Reaching Back to 1972, Welle Doubles Down on his Contempt for Smith’s ‘Perverse’ Views

In their News 12 debate last week, Democratic challenger Josh Welle called U.S. Rep. Chris Smith’s views “perverse,” a comment that caused Smith to demand an apology.

“I defend the sanctity of life,” said Smith. “My opponent believs we ought to use taxpayer funding to pay for abortions.”

Welle didn’t supply one, and today presented what he called evidence warranting outrage over the veteran congressman’s beliefs, citing Smith’s expression of intolerance for homosexuality in a 1972 op-ed.

Welle for Congress Communications Director Aubrey Fink said, “In light of very recent events happening nationally concerning the LGBTQ community, the Welle Campaign is extremely concerned about Smith’s ability to serve because of his long-standing position on civil rights.”

In 1972, Smith wrote a letter to his college newspaper entitled “Identity,” in which he illustrates his belief that homosexuality is, by nature, unnatural and immoral. Smith states, “Manhood is heterosexuality; so is womanhood.” The congressman originally printed the letter in the Trenton State College Newspaper, Signal. In it, Smith goes on to equate homosexuality with sexual perversion and living with the Anti-Christ, “So what is the current upsurge in idenity [sic] reversal, sexual perversion and permissiveness? The falling away from God and His law. We can live in harmony with His spiritual laws and be like the man, as Christ said, who built his life on an indestructable [sic] rock or we can live in disharmony with the Anti-Christ, the devil…”

In response to the 1972 article, Congressional District 4 candidate Welle said, “Smith believed these words to be true in 1972, and his actions in office would indicate that he has not changed in decades. Smith has co-sponsored five bills and five constitutional amendments to limit the definition of marriage* (see citation below) and has been on record asserting ‘I do not construe homosexual rights as human rights’ (Asbury Park Press, 2015).”

The challenger added, “As an Afghanistan veteran, I fought to defend the Constitution and equal rights for all Americans, not the few. Mr. Smith, hate crimes are rising. Children are fearful for their friends and futures because you tell them they don’t deserve the same rights to family that others enjoy. And since you have not done a town hall in 25 years, and fail to meet with LGBTQ leaders, I ask you on their behalf: Do still believe the views you laid out in your 1972 letter or will you finally protect the civil rights of all, no matter gender or sexual orientation?”

The Full Smith Letter is reprinted below:

Signal

Trenton State College News Paper

“Identity”

By: Chris Smith

1972

Some are constantly trying to prove it. Some are quietly fearful of themselves. Others live in fanciful dreams of being Joe Stud. Some have given into deceit, confusion and falsehood and changed mentally their sex; some even physically. While others live their manhood with rocklike idenity. Just what does it mean to be a man? To be a tough guy or swinger, no. To be identity Some are constantly trying to prove it. Some are quietly fearful of themselves. Others live in fanciful dreams of being Joe Stud. Some have given into deceit, courageous, sure, but women can be equally courageous. To be loving, sure, but women can be equally loving. To be loyal and honest, sure, but women can be equally loyal and honest. I could list many more similar virtues but they only describe desirable characteristics of a good man or a good woman. Manhood is heterosexuality; so is womanhood. Because of the uniqueness of. this word, it is shared by both men and women but takes on an opposite meaning for both. It is the beautiful, God given attraction of a man for a woman and a woman for a man. In the Bible we have the authorative words of Jesus saying that in marriage, where before man and woman were two, now they become as one. So what is the current upsurge in idenity reversal, sexual perversion and permissiveness? The falling away from God and His law. We can live in harmony with Hisspiritual laws and be like the man, as Christ said, who built his life on an indestructable rock or we can live in disharmony with the Anti-Christ, the devil (not the laughable, firery red character with horns but the evil one often spoken of by Jesus) and be like the man who built his life on sand which eroded and eventually fell. God wants us happy; His laws are for our welfare, our protection, not His! Most of us are wise enough to limit our food intake so as not to cause stomach upset . If daily we fed ourselves nothing but hot pepper and horseradish sandwiches, wouldn’t our stomachs make us miserable? Most everyone selects food that is compatible to the stomach and the laws of care the stomach dictates. Why then aren’t we selective with the imput to our brains? If we view all the stag films, ready dirty novels and magazines and think impure thoughts, we’ll get a distorted, confused and compulsive conception of sexuality. If you have taken the wrong path this far, as everyone has at one time or another, hop on the right road and let the Bible and your conscience be your roadmap. God is as far away as your next thought. He wants good things for all of us and the most basic starting point is the awareness of our sex.

 

(Visited 33 times, 1 visits today)

2 responses to “Reaching Back to 1972, Welle Doubles Down on his Contempt for Smith’s ‘Perverse’ Views”

  1. Uh, what about the 1st Amendment? I guess it only applies to what Welle thinks. Welle and his thought police should go away.

  2. The 1st amendment entitles you to hold any view you want and you are, of course, free to spout those views wherever you want (subject to certain limits, including the oft cited “you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater” exception). However, the Constitution does not protect you from the consequences of expressing those views. Smith’s views are simply out of sync with 21st century thinking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

News From Around the Web

The Political Landscape