Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage - FRist,TN
Yahoo! News ^ | 6/29/03 | Peter Kaplan - Reuters

Posted on 06/29/2003 12:32:00 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

Photo
Reuters Photo

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy law. He said he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for relationships between men and women.

"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between, what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would support the amendment."

The comment, during an interview on ABC's "This Week" program, comes days after the U.S. high court struck down sodomy laws that made it a crime for gays to have consensual sex in their own bedrooms on the grounds the laws violated constitutional privacy rights.

The court's decision was applauded by gay rights advocates as a historic ruling that overturned sodomy laws in 13 states.

Conservatives have expressed their fears that the June 26 ruling could lead to the legalization of gay marriages.

The marriage amendment, reintroduced in the House of Representatives last month, says marriage in the United States "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Amending the constitution requires the approval of two thirds of each of the houses of the U.S. Congress and approval of 38 state legislatures.

Frist said he feared that the ruling on the Texas sodomy law could lead to a situation "where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."

"And I'm thinking of, whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern," Frist said.

Frist said the questions of whether to criminalize sodomy should be made by state legislatures.

"That's where those decisions, with the local norms, the local mores, are being able to have their input in reflected," Frist said.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; amendment; backsbanning; culturewar; downourthroats; druglaws; gaymarriages; homosexualagenda; incestlaws; lavendermafia; lawrencevtexas; marriagelaws; pornographylaws; privacylaws; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; senatorfrist; sexlaws; sodomylaws
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last

1 posted on 06/29/2003 12:32:00 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
How can you ban Gay marriage now? On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it?

I also want to see how the government justifies no-knock raids now that whatever adults choose to do in their homes is okay.
2 posted on 06/29/2003 12:36:17 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Vote Dimpublican in 2004: Socialism's kinder gentler party: "We will leave no wallet behind!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
He should rather call for someone to submit articles of impeachment against the six unrighteous judges who are misleading the Republic.
3 posted on 06/29/2003 12:37:03 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it?

Amendments trump Supremes.

4 posted on 06/29/2003 12:37:22 PM PDT by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
How can you ban Gay marriage now? On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it?

The Supreme Court can't declare a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional.
5 posted on 06/29/2003 12:39:24 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: friendly
Yes, this moron actually wants to change the Constitution. Do these people seriously have that little to do that someone actually comes up with this?

Maybe we could get a constitutional amendment that only allows Congress to conduct session for 30 days a year, if this is the stuff they are coming up with...
6 posted on 06/29/2003 12:39:26 PM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
The Supreme Court can't declare a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional.

I'm not so sure of this. It's certainly never happened, and I've been involved in several heated discussions over this very subject on this board.

I think the most you can say is that it has never been done before.

7 posted on 06/29/2003 12:41:11 PM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: friendly; Arkinsaw
Thank you. Then I would suggest this ammendment be lengthy and address a multitude of 'rights' that deviants should be prevented from having, including beastiality and the presentation of this carp to our young children in school. And I might add, forbit schools from promoting their degenerate and anti-American agenda as well.
8 posted on 06/29/2003 12:44:10 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Vote Dimpublican in 2004: Socialism's kinder gentler party: "We will leave no wallet behind!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
As much as I like this amendment, and support it, I do honestly believe this is just a weak attempt to energize the base and motivate them. I don't think he is being genuine. Never the less, its not something thats not possible to pass. I would prefer the language read as something not banning, but specifying what marriage is and limiting it to a man and a woman (also human, I know sicko out there will look for a loophole).
9 posted on 06/29/2003 12:45:41 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
The Supreme Court can't declare a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional.

No, but they can pretend it says something it doesn't. From "Nor shall any state...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," the Supreme Court somehow created a right to discriminate against white people.

10 posted on 06/29/2003 12:48:32 PM PDT by Holden Magroin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
I'm not so sure of this. It's certainly never happened, and I've been involved in several heated discussions over this very subject on this board.

The reason it never has happened is because its simply not allowed. Thats why the supreme court "re-interprets" amendments to say what they want them to say. Using "re-interpretation" and the concept of "living and breating" amendments, allows them to pull the stunts they do.

By definition alone, unconstitional means against the constitution, if its an amendment, its a part of the constitution, it not possible for it to be against itself.

11 posted on 06/29/2003 12:48:58 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"How can you ban Gay marriage now? On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it?"

With all due respect, this question reveals a real lack of understanding regarding our governmental system.

12 posted on 06/29/2003 12:49:43 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace ((the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"How can you ban Gay marriage now? On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it? "

By doing exactly what Senator Frist is proposing. Adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which specifically defines marriage in the United States and all it's territories.

SCOTUS cannot override the Constitution. But I imagine that we will then have the problem of defining exactly what is a man and what is a woman. After all, if we don't even really know what "IS", is.
13 posted on 06/29/2003 12:50:02 PM PDT by navyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I would suggest this ammendment be lengthy and address a multitude of 'rights' that deviants should be prevented from having, including beastiality and the presentation of this carp to our young children in school. And I might add, forbit schools from promoting their degenerate and anti-American agenda as well.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

14 posted on 06/29/2003 12:51:02 PM PDT by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I can not back this. Good idea, wrong method.

I can not support any constitutional amendment banning ANYTHING, even murder. The constitution was created to limit GOVERNMENT, not the freedoms of individuals.

Gay marriage is a state issue. The feds did the right thing with the defense of marriage act. That's good enough there. This fight belongs in our state capitiols.

And on the state level, I would support a ban on gay marriage.

15 posted on 06/29/2003 12:51:17 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan (Liberals - "The suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
What? Where do you people come from? The Supreme Court is in place to interpret the law. I guess you think the Supreme Court can get rid of the Bill of Rights? Geezus.
16 posted on 06/29/2003 12:51:37 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace ((the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
If you are going to be talking about rights, this, above all, should be pointed out:

Nobody has a right to marry.

If there was such a right, there would be no limits.

17 posted on 06/29/2003 12:51:57 PM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I think the constitution is fine as it is. I wish people would stop trying to change it.
18 posted on 06/29/2003 12:53:16 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
It's happened in other countries (India and Germany, I believe, but I'm truthfully not sure about Germany), and I certainly think it could happen here, given the right circumstances. I doubt that an amendment banning gay marriage, regardless of its intellectual shortcomings, would be the one to make it happen, but let's say there was a constitutional amendment to strip Muslims of due process rights. This certainly flies in the very face of the goals of the constituion.

The question then becomes whether there are "higher" principles for which the constitution stands which are superior to the actual text of the document. I would argue that there are certain liberties and rights that are so fundamental to a free society that they cannot be changed by any government fiat, or a free society would simply no longer exist.
19 posted on 06/29/2003 12:53:53 PM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: navyblue
And in my personal opinion, that is determined ONLY by the grouping of the X and Y chromosomes in the human gene system. You of course are entitled to your opinion.
20 posted on 06/29/2003 12:54:24 PM PDT by navyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dead
I think the constitution is fine as it is. I wish people would stop trying to change it.

Other than the 16th and 17th Amendments, and the one changing election of the senate to a popular vote - yes.
21 posted on 06/29/2003 12:55:22 PM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: navyblue
True.
22 posted on 06/29/2003 12:55:28 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Vote Dimpublican in 2004: Socialism's kinder gentler party: "We will leave no wallet behind!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
Can they do that to a SCOTUS justice and what would it require?
23 posted on 06/29/2003 12:56:35 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
How is marriage a federal issue? And how can the federal government move to protect a 'sacrament'? What if a gay marriage is performed by a church... wouldn't it be a sacrament too? Or does the government get to define whose sacraments are 'real' sacraments, and whose aren't?

Fortunately, this is all just blowing smoke; the proposal will die in committee and Frist will take credit for trying, without trying very hard.

24 posted on 06/29/2003 12:57:04 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Either "restrict" or "limit" marriage to be between a man and a woman only. That way, no "ban" is necessary.
25 posted on 06/29/2003 12:57:05 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
Once it is part of the Constitution, the justices INTERPRET the amendment, not judge it.
26 posted on 06/29/2003 12:57:39 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
One could say that about normal laws, too, but the Supreme Court can find laws unconstitutional.
27 posted on 06/29/2003 12:58:48 PM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
agreed
28 posted on 06/29/2003 1:01:06 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
"One could say that about normal laws, too, but the Supreme Court can find laws unconstitutional."

But we are not talking about laws here. We are talking about a constitutional amendment!

The Supremes cannot rule the U.S. Constitution unconsitutional!
29 posted on 06/29/2003 1:03:11 PM PDT by navyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: navyblue
But why not?

There is no explicit constitutional power of judicial review of constitutionality of laws, but yet the Supreme Court exercises this power on a regular basis.
30 posted on 06/29/2003 1:06:07 PM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
Frist said he feared that the ruling on the Texas sodomy law could lead to a situation "where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."

Hyperbole and Misdirection. Senator Frist is implying that the USSC decision somehow condones illegal activity "because it was in the home" and that is a complete misrepresentation of the ruling.

The USSC decided that the Texas Law didn't pass Constitutional muster as it violated not only the 14th Amendment, but the very idea that the government has the power to intrude in the private relations of consenting individuals, not that illegal activity is somehow OK "in private".

The decision in no way approved of, nor denigrated, said activity, it simply stated that the Texas Legislature grossly overstepped their Constitutional mandated powers in passing the law in the first place.

Now I here you all out there screaming 10th Amendment and I will address that simply by saying that your 10th Amendment argument presupposes that the State had the right to impose this Law in the first place. That's a starting point, not an ending point my friends. The 10th Amendment States that:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As you can see the key phrase in regards to this case, in my opinion, would have to be; nor prohibited by it to the States. The question before the court wasn’t; is homosexual sex protected by the Constitution but, was the Law prohibiting it Constitutionally correct?

Some would argue that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee us a right to privacy, nor does it guarantee us the right to homosexual relations. This seems to be a favorite argument of the “if the Constitution doesn’t say you have the right then you don’t have the right” crowd. These people often pass themselves off as some type of all knowing Constitutional Gurus yet seem to forget one simple thing, the 9th Amendment. You know the one I’m talking about right? That pesky little Amendment that says:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

So much for the Constitution doesn’t guarantee the “right to privacy” crowd. As anyone can plainly see, just because the Constitution doesn’t spell out the “right to privacy” in black and white, it is not a slam-dunk, by any stretch of the imagination, that we don’t indeed have that right.

So, to find out if this is indeed a just and good law, we have to go to the other Amendments and test the law against them. It is here that the Texas Law fails so miserably, as it is clearly, in deed and intent, a violation of the 14th Amendment, as opined by Justice O’Connor. The idea that a certain specific group of people would be singled out for prosecution, for actions that the majority populous would not, is anathema to this nations entire existence. An existence predicated on the idea that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among those the right life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The private consensual pursuit of happiness by two people, regardless of their sexual orientation, is constitutionally protected. So rules the Supreme Court.

31 posted on 06/29/2003 1:06:12 PM PDT by The_Pickle ("We have no Permanent Allies, We have no Permanent Enemies, Only Permanent Interests")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Well we'll just see whether the Supremes think a right to marry exists or not.  While the instituion is not mentioned in the Constitution, allowing some to marry and forbidding others to marry is going to be challenged on Constitutional grounds none the less.
32 posted on 06/29/2003 1:07:36 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Vote Dimpublican in 2004: Socialism's kinder gentler party: "We will leave no wallet behind!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
As a Constitutional 'Purist' I believe that the Lawrence case was 'out of bounds' for the court to consider.

As it is, the Lawrence opinion should have included parallels to past court decisions pertaining to pornography where 'Community standards' are set by the democratic process of the people to engaged in debate through their elected representatives.

In Lawrence, the majority of the court have decided that rather than 'Individual Self Government' reflecting the consent of the governed, a judicial aristocracy can govern without regard to constitutionally elected representatives at all levels of government; local - State - National.

Unfortuately, the Lawrence decision has implications far beyond sex, sodomy and homosexuality...

33 posted on 06/29/2003 1:07:55 PM PDT by Van Jenerette (Our Republic...if we can keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy law. He said he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for relationships between men and women.

He has no problem with the Texas law outlawing homosexual sex, so why not a Constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual sex? Why not a Constitutional amendment against homosexuality altogether?

34 posted on 06/29/2003 1:10:41 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Although on the face of it, this seems a good idea, it is flawed. It is fighting a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself - much like the anti-flag burning amendment.

The problem is an out-of-control Supreme Court which legislates from the bench rather than interprets the plain text of the Constitution.

The quick answer is probably impeachment, but I don't see that happening. The next best thing is getting strict constuctionists on the Court, but the Dems are intent on blocking that and they probably will succeed.

Fundamentally, the country needs a massive revival of Constitutional understanding and principle, or it is lost to the eroding tyranny of the creeping socialist state. Revival can only come from the grassroots and must result in the complete overhaul of our education and media to have any lasting effect.

The country is split down the middle with more statists coming in or being produced by the education system every day. Something has to give if we are to live peacefully together! At some point, those determined to uphold the Constitution will inevitably say "enough". What will happen then is very much up in the air.

35 posted on 06/29/2003 1:14:06 PM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut
I was wondering exactly the same thing.

As I've been taking in the news about the anti-sodomy case these past few days, the thing that bothers me most-- and the thing that is absolutely verified by Frist's comment-- is that the basis for banning gay marriage is a principle of a religion.

Sure, go ahead and say it's a religion on which this country is founded, a religion on which we based our ethical values in the writing of laws. But I would have to argue that our laws are based on human rights, not Judeo-Christian ethics.

A sacrament is, by definition, a formal religious act that is sacred as a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality. If legislature can enforce anything that is a 'sacrament,' anything that is the part of any particular religious institution, why not legally enforce communion? Or add a tithe to our taxes?

I've heard enough BS about anti-sodomy laws being in place for the betterment of the gay population, and the population as a whole. Generalizing that all gays and lesbians participate in and condone criminal activity is outright ridiculous. I may as well say that all blacks are going to hell. The 'health risks' of engaging in homosexual intercourse should, like smoking, drinking, or any other activity detrimental to one's health, be up to the decision of the individual.

And, luckily, I do agree that any sort of complete ban on gay marriage would be, as you said, 'blowing smoke'.
36 posted on 06/29/2003 1:14:39 PM PDT by Dayadhvam (another devil's advocate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Political posturing....reminding me of the flag burning amendment.
37 posted on 06/29/2003 1:16:45 PM PDT by RJCogburn ("Who knows what's in a man's heart?".....Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
Like who would that be?

There is no mention whatsoever in the constutition about administrative agencies, but no one in any position of power has seriously contended that these agencies are unconstitutional.

Scalia is the only one that has even hinted that he would find them unconstitutional, but even he hedged his bets a little.

Look, like it or not, there is no such thing as a "strict constructionist." They don't exist. Sorry.
38 posted on 06/29/2003 1:18:39 PM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
And on the state level, I would support a ban on gay marriage.

For the record, that is exactly what happened in California. However, that state's legislature has recently given the voters the finger in giving same-sex couples all the bells and whistles that go with marriage--save calling it marriage.

Now, under ordinary circumstances, such behavior would result in a clean sweep in state government. Thing is, the RATS have been orchestrating voter fraud and intentionally dragging their feet on a recall of Governor Gray Davis.

This complete and total disrespect for the citizens of California is nothing short of arrogant and outrageous. And the people are being left with few options.

39 posted on 06/29/2003 1:22:07 PM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
This has no chance of getting the 2/3 of all votes needed, and even if it does, it has absolutely no chance of getting ratified by 38 states.

Here are 15 states that will not ratify (only 13 needed): ME, MA, VT, NY, NJ, CA, MD, DE, CT, RI, WA, OR, MN, WI, HI.

Frist needs to put a sock in it. The battle against gay marriage is over (no, I'm not happy with the result). The only question now is whether to take the issuance of all marriage licenses away from the state, since the state has completely failed to defend traditional marriage.
40 posted on 06/29/2003 1:23:53 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
It's happened in other countries (India and Germany, I believe, but I'm truthfully not sure about Germany), and I certainly think it could happen here, given the right circumstances.

I think your right about germany, never the less, if our scotus did it, there would be nothing that would at that point stop say the president, from essentilly ignoring there ruling, and saying "go ahead and endorce it yourselfs" (this actually has happened in the US, I think it may have been Jackson, and I think he actually used those words).

Never the less, Declaring an amendment unconstitional, would essentially draw a crisis on the spot, as the system of checks and balances would essentially be destroyed. The check on the supreme court is constitutional amendments, there is no other real check. Appointments aren't even a real check, and impeachments are not a solid check either, those amendments are what keeps the court from essentially usurping all the power of the executive and legislative branches.

YOu could and would have an instant dictatorship if they could declare amendments unconstitutional, hence why they dance around it by calling the document living and breathing. More likely then not, if say all 9 said an amendment was unconstitional, then there would be nothing to stop congress and the president from also ignoring the constitional in total either, and basically ignoring SCOTUS, or simply declaring they they can now outrank scotus. All crazy and hypothetical to be sure, note, that the constitution is explicit enough to declare that it is the supreme law of the land, and specifies how to make an amendment, and that it does trump anything and everything else. It also specifies the only way to change an amendment or get rid of one, it to amend again. SCOTUS overruling the law of the land, is hence illegal, by violating the check and balance, and usurping the amending process would bring about more then impeachment, it could actually result in there arrest. (scary stuff).

41 posted on 06/29/2003 1:36:04 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
I would argue that there are certain liberties and rights that are so fundamental to a free society that they cannot be changed by any government fiat

Marriage is not one of those.

42 posted on 06/29/2003 1:37:46 PM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Political posturing....reminding me of the flag burning amendment.

Crazy as this may sound, the strongest supporters of the flag burning amendment, according to every poll I have ever seen, seems to come from people in the middle. Hard right conservatives in general don't like or aren't to keen on actually having a flag burning amendment, liberals also abhor the idea, but the majority of americans do support it.....untill you change the wording of the question around.

43 posted on 06/29/2003 1:40:08 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Grut
What if a gay marriage is performed by a church...

If it is not legally recognized by the state, it does not matter who performs the ceremony. A marriage without a license is not legal, and the state will not, in most states, grant such a license to a same-sex couple.

It's not rocket science.

44 posted on 06/29/2003 1:41:53 PM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
The constitution was created to limit GOVERNMENT, not the freedoms of individuals.

Slam and dunk.  Nicely done.
45 posted on 06/29/2003 1:53:20 PM PDT by gcruse (There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women[.] --Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
It's not rocket science.

...but it is a sacrament, which Frist seems to think qualifies it for federal protection!

46 posted on 06/29/2003 1:57:05 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: The_Pickle
If the Ninth Amendment makes your case, why didn't the Supreme Court use it in the decision?
47 posted on 06/29/2003 2:02:29 PM PDT by NoNewTaleToTell (Hay for my men, tequila for the horses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I hope Frist is serious about this; I strongly support this amendment. It's about time that we, the People, take back our right to govern ourselves. The amendment process is a check against the abuses of the judiciary, and we ought to make us of it. If there is a silver lining to the atrocious fiat rulings handed down this week, it is that they have energized conservatives to fight back.
48 posted on 06/29/2003 2:07:00 PM PDT by Rebellans (Judgment, not Will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; AntiGuv; Sabertooth; jwalsh07; sinkspur
And I'm thinking of, whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern," Frist said.

Did Frist just have a Rick Santorum moment? Oh dear.

49 posted on 06/29/2003 2:08:13 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
This is definitely necessary, or else we might just go the way of Canada and her prissy European sisters. This is something that could definitely pass the Congress and the states, with a lot of Southern Democrats supporting it, especially if it was voted on before the 2004 election. Lincoln, Breaux, Bayh, Dorgan, Dashcle, Hollings, Specter, and other liberals in conservative states would be inclined to vote for it. What's interesting is how the Democrat candidates would vote.

Regarding the Court, I don't think everyone realizes truly how powerful it is. You have to realize, anything it says goes. If the five of the liberals on the Court got together and decided to severely mess up our country, they could. The court could say that under the nineteenth amendment, women are prohibited from voting, though we can all tell that it grants them just that right. The Court could say that the 2nd amendment explicitly prohibits individuals from owning firearms, though it clearly does the opposite. Anything siad by five justices on the Court becomes law, as absurd as that is. Obviously, if they made decisions as incomprehensible as the ones I just mentioned, they would be impeached. Yet decisions that by a very far stretch lay some sort of claim to properly interpreting the Constitution, such as the universal right to abortion and racial preferences, result in consequences for the justices and no rectification of their wrongdoing.
50 posted on 06/29/2003 2:09:36 PM PDT by mugler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson