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 I
IL 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
&
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
/
>-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,
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.
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
