Frist Wants Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Yahoo! ^ | June 29, 2003

[DAnconia55]

Life has gotten way too serious to put up with hysterical social conservative crap anymore.

A most excellent observation. Well put.

[Antoninus]

A minute spent talking about inconsequential issues like this is a minute that can't be spent on the war on terror.

A nation that enshrines the "right to sodomy" (and previously the "right to abortion") in its constitution will be destroyed from within before its external enemies get it. Once completely rotted out, it will collapse like a house of cards when a strong enemy comes along. History is replete with examples of this.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Ah PKM, we are now firmly with the mode of the new politics...as defined by Dick Morris (may I barf forever). Triangulation, as practiced by the Supreme Court, is now going to inflame the nation. The law of unintended consequences at work.

We will find out now if indeed there is a majority that will "preserve what remains."

For one, I don't think so. I think we are outnumbered here. It isn't the number of gays vs. the number of straights. It is the number of those who believe that morality is the primary requirement in a Republic vs. those that think individual choice and relativism should rule the society.

And on those terms our victory is much more in doubt.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Government regulation of marriage has done nothing to lessen either. You've failed to demonstrate how de-regulating marriage will increase the number of children who effectively only have one parrent.

Good points. Really, as far as I am concerned, marriage as a legal (as opposed to romantic and religious) concept mostly died when the state legislatures adopted no-fault divorce. What is really needed, but won't happen for many decades, is to go back to having divorce limited to situations in which the suing party is not at the fault and the one being sued is at fault. If both parties are at fault, the couple should be forced to stay together for the sake of the children, or, if child abusers, jailed. In the first half of the last century, this system was ridiculed because of divorcing husbands and wives who made a mockery of the law by staging infidelity. However, the difficulty in showing one side to be at fault contributed to a low divorce rate and more stability for children.

[chance33_98]

e.g. Marriage, in any context, in any state, any, is a union of two people of different sexes, genders or whatever you want to call them. People of the same sex don't qualify, in any manner, shape or form.

What happens if two men want to get married and one gets a sex change to accomodate the law :)

[DAnconia55]

There's even a natural geographic break-line developing. This is going to get really nasty, and for more than just a summer

You're way too impressed with your side. Seriously.

You really don't understand that social conservatives are but a tiny handful of people in a vast ocean of American citizens.

You're not even 10%.
You don't matter much any more.

A lot of the noisy social conservatives will whine and moan. Any nothing will happen.

Unless W gets wise and takes my advice above :) Then you'll never matter again. And you won't be able to hold the GOP hostage anymore.

[Antoninus]

but someday, we'll be called the sickos and forced to seek counseling for believing what the bible says about homosexuality.

That day is closer than you think. While homosexuality is now excluded from the list of mental disorders, some psychologists believe that "homophobia" should be added.

Hey, looks like we'll all qualify for the ADA if they get their way...

[Antoninus]

You are right -- uniting with Blacks on this would be huge! And we do need to unite behind one group!

Deserves it's own thread, maybe??

[mdittmar]

Wanna bet?
50.00 lizard skins Antoninus,not in our lifetime.

[NittanyLion]

Some folks are so busy trying to figure out what their neighbors are up to, they don't notice Tom Daschle and his band of merry thieves raiding the safe downstairs. Marriage as an institution will not stand or fall based on what the state says about it, but rather the morals of the day. And a Constitutional amendment does nothing to change morals.

[Ken H]

Sen. Frist is perfectly safe in saying he supports a constitutional amendment because it's an event that will never happen.

Certainly not with the current Senate. You'd have to get every R and almost half the Ds to get the necessary two-thirds.

I doubt you could get two-thirds of the House either.

He's too much a dainty man at a time we need terminators in the Senate Republican leadership.

That's why I'm wondering if Senator Frist really intended to put himself right in the middle of this firestorm.

It would be more like Dr. Frist to bypass an issue such as this.

[First Amendment]

I don't even want my legislature discussing sodomy, let alone an ammendment about it. I am sick to death of the gay issue and it's opposite and equally annoying anti argument.

Then you are on the wrong planet. Or you could spend several years reading all of Dickens' books.

It isn't the people who don't want sodomy shoved down their throats that brought up the subject in the first place.

[Steve Eisenberg]

I mean the amendment really needs to spell terms out in painful detail. Especially what a man or a woman are (probably in terms of born genital phenotype).

Not really. The number of people who want to change their sex is low enough that I wouldn't worry about it.

[PhiKapMom]

Guess because I live here in flyover country (Thank God for that!), we see things differently. There is a total uproar around here about this ruling.

I live in the heart of the Bible belt and from a lot of accounts the church congregations are in an uproar. Some of these are the folks that stayed home in the last election. They need something to motivate them and this could do it.

Believe that the Country is not ready for Gay Marriage and are sick and tired of the Gay lifestyle being shoved at us since the Clintons took office.

When you get a black influential group behind the amendment on marriage, this just may have legs and I intend to be there helping out!

Personally believe that we need those 60 Republican Senators to get Supreme Court justices on the bench that know what it means to be constitutional justices and not social welfare justices. I am totally disappointed in Sandra Day O'Connor and think some other State should bring this case forward.

I would say my stupid state, but our RAT Attorney General is already talking about releasing sexual predators because of this ruling which has far reaching affects!

Off my soapbox for at least the next five minutes! LOL!!!

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yeah, and it'll have to specify clearly that anyone whose born genital phenotype is in any way ambiguous has to have that fact marked on their birth certificate, and will be prohibited from marrying at all. Just so we can be absolutely sure that nobody anywhere ever manages sneak something like a gay marriage onto the government-controlled marriage registration rolls.

[PhiKapMom]

I think it deserves its own thread. I checked NRSC hoping that something would be up on this but nothing on the weekend!

[Antoninus]

Time to drive a wedge where it belongs! The Puritans cannot vote Demon no matter what. And the GOP can add A LOT MORE swing voters to the ranks while dumping the them! Time to push forward a bold economic agenda, maximizing our freedoms!

Why do you think the libertarians get only 1-2% of the vote, tops? There is no groundswell for the libertine movement. Zero. If you drove the "puritans" (read, practicing Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, and others) out of the GOP, they'd be lucky to get 10-15% of the vote. Meanwhile, the Scumocrats would sweep into office.

But I suppose that's a good thing, eh?

[Tribune7]

Its coming and there ain't nothing any of us can do about it.

A man sticking his pecker up another man's anus performs an unhealthy act. We should try to discourage it. Those who do this are not heroes. They may be pited but they should not be honored.

Secondly, I have no problem with transferring health benefits, Social Security, pensions, inheritance tax waivers etc. to a widow because that widow very likely sacrificed herself to perform the most important job in society -- being a mother. I do have a problem with a man removing himself from the labor force so he can play house for another man.

With some of these things -- such as Social Security -- it might be better to change it so the benefits may be willed to whomever. And I certainly think we should get rid of the inheritance tax.

But this is not the status quo and homosexual men should not get any of the privileges of marriage since they can not bear any of the responsibilities.

The only reason for the state to involve itself in marriage is to protect mothers and children.

Marriage might actually be applicable concerning lesbians and artificial insemination. BUT, it should be recognized that this is a contract involving all of society, and those breaking it should expect to feel consequences.

[Atchafalaya]

I agree, e(effeing)nough.