RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
When Richard Wilkins lays out a real constitutional argument I will be first in line to read it. So far, he resorts to bombast and preaching rather than jurisprudence. The local option you propose does have some major practical complications (as we have discussed), ones that could be sorted out however by reasonable, pragmatic people. But, Steven, thank you for acknowledging that one needn't wax heretical to oppose the the proposed amendment. Ron -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as outlined in Article III, Section 2? http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a constitutional amendment, but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their jurisdiction. It would be far easier, send a strong message to these activist judges, and protect this vital institution at the same time. http://www.thecbn.net/ http://www.thecbn.net/cbn040226.html -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle--George Washington // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- // /// 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: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
Steven Montgomery wrote: If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as outlined in Article III, Section 2? http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a constitutional amendment, but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their jurisdiction. This is why the pro-family forces are doomed to failure. They can't even agree among themselves about what needs to be done. --JWR // /// 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: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
-Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution Steven Montgomery wrote: If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as outlined in Article III, Section 2? http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a constitutional amendment, but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their jurisdiction. This is why the pro-family forces are doomed to failure. They can't even agree among themselves about what needs to be done. --JWR I agree, John. Notice that yesterday the proponents of the amendment expanded language of the proposed amendment to give states the right to adopt same sex union legislation and even Orrin Hatch was dithering. Before this is over, I won't be surprised to see the church walk away from the whole deal because it is becoming increasingly obvious that the amendment will fail and even if it should pass will be about as sharply formed as, say, jello. RBS // /// 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: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
RB Scott wrote: I agree, John. Notice that yesterday the proponents of the amendment expanded language of the proposed amendment to give states the right to adopt same sex union legislation and even Orrin Hatch was dithering. Where can I read about this? --JWR // /// 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: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
Any newspaper in America, I presume. It was front page of the Globe today. I assume the NYT as well, although I have not yet read the Times today. RBS -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution RB Scott wrote: I agree, John. Notice that yesterday the proponents of the amendment expanded language of the proposed amendment to give states the right to adopt same sex union legislation and even Orrin Hatch was dithering. Where can I read about this? --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- // /// 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: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
At 11:38 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote: Steven Montgomery wrote: If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as outlined in Article III, Section 2? http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a constitutional amendment, but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their jurisdiction. This is why the pro-family forces are doomed to failure. They can't even agree among themselves about what needs to be done. --JWR But I did sign the petition urging passage of a marriage amendment. I'm willing to cover all bases. However, I haven't seen Wilkins mention *anything* at all about the article III, section 2 option. -- Steven Montgomery html a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3; img border=0 src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalogosmall.jpg; width=406 height=100/a /html http://www.stoptheftaa.org // /// 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: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
