Orrin Hatch feels that ONLY a federal marriage amendment will provide an effective barrier against judicial activism redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage.
Apparently Steve Farrell agrees. So does Redelfs. Anything less than a federal amendment will be swept away by the flood of filth we are currently witnessing.


Some may argue that an amendment cannot be passed because it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses and ratification of three-fourths of the states. I hope that is not true because if it is, then the battle is lost. If we cannot pass an amendment, then our goose is cooked. I pray that it is not so.

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Too bad we didn't do it 40 years ago. It would have been a piece of cake back then...but then again, no one back then even dreamed (nightmared?) that it would ever be needed. A ban on same sex marriage back then probably would have seemed as completely useless as a constitutional declaration that children are humans from conception on.
My personal opinion is if the Democratic party of 1960 showed up today, they would physically beat the current Democratic party to pieces out of rage and shame.
--
Jonathan Scott


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  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]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------



Reply via email to