To: Jim Robinson
We might as well go all in on the homo issue and start a movement to draft a Constitutional amendment defining it a monogamous and heterosexual. It would take 38 states to ratify such an amendment and there are already 34 with laws or state constitutional amendments prohibiting homos from marrying. With off-year elections coming up, I have no doubt we could get the legislatures in an additional 4 states to ratify. Then we can put an end to this abominable farce once and for all.
Otherwise, homo “marriage” will very shortly be the law of the land.
317 posted on
06/26/2013 11:40:02 AM PDT by
IronJack
(=)
To: IronJack
I’d be 100 percent behind a crusade like this. With 38 and a constitutional amendment it would stop O from cramming anything down the hatch.
Let me know what you and JimRob devise and I’ll do what I can.
320 posted on
06/26/2013 11:42:16 AM PDT by
JCBreckenridge
(Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
To: IronJack
325 posted on
06/26/2013 11:55:52 AM PDT by
Jim Robinson
(Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
To: IronJack
Keep in mind that any proposed Amendment requires a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress before going to the states. That’s a pretty difficult hurdle to clear at present.
376 posted on
06/26/2013 4:55:03 PM PDT by
Coronal
To: IronJack
We might as well go all in on the homo issue and start a movement to draft a Constitutional amendment defining it a monogamous and heterosexual. It would take 38 states to ratify such an amendment and there are already 34 with laws or state constitutional amendments prohibiting homos from marrying. With off-year elections coming up, I have no doubt we could get the legislatures in an additional 4 states to ratify. Then we can put an end to this abominable farce once and for all.
You're presuming that all 34 would vote for your amendment.
Given California's trending, the most recent vote in Minnesota (which is one of your 34 but wouldn't even amend its own constitution after that) and the general polling nationwide, that's a pretty silly presumption to make. If you can't even hold on to the 34 we "have", how will you possibly get to 38?
No, I'm afraid our window has closed. I doubt we could even get many of those existing laws passed today, much less a Constitutional Amendment.
402 posted on
06/27/2013 1:09:15 PM PDT by
highball
("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson