Frist Wants Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Yahoo! ^ | June 29, 2003

[El Gato]

Look at the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law

Or the Second's "shall not be infringed". That language doesn't even restrict itself to Congress, as pre-20th century judges pointed out on more than one occassion.

[PhiKapMom]

I knew you were -- I just thought it was a great post to add on about how many from the religious right camp stayed home the last time.

I cannot think of anything that would rally them more.

Our RAT Attorney General here in OK is going to be releasing prisoners because of this ruling -- they are scum that are locked up and now they will be back on the streets. Said the beastiality (sp) part of the Constitution would still stand though!

This whole deal is disgusting!

[Sofa King]

---

What about the children?

Sofa King may indeed be pointing the direction of the future, with the government not caring one bit that the kids were born out of wedlock, and continuing to vigorously enforce child support paid by men who mostly no longer live with their child's mother. Except for strong faith communities, the future for the nation's children seems to be one in which broken families are the norm. Sofa King, explain to me how this is NOT your plan.

---

Government ALREADY doesn't care whether or not children are being born in wedlock, or whether or not a child who was born in wedlock's parents get divorced. 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.

[Antoninus]

I don't care if we lose the gay vote because we will be standing in principal and the religious right should see that!

And we don't have all that much of the "gay" vote to lose, anyway. Meanwhile, the groundswell that the GOP could gain would be epic. We could literally sweep to an historic, across-the-board nation-wide victory that would make the Dems a minority party for decades. The argument must be presented as pro-traditional marriage, not anti-gay for this to succeed.

If only our leaders have the courage and the political acumen to carry it off..........

Pray!

[PhiKapMom]

Exactly! A lot of half empty glass people around here tonight! You are so right SCOTUS cannot overturn a Constitutional amendment! I am ready to go gather signatures here in OK tomorrow if necessary!

Let's put the cards on the table on which Party is going to stand up for Marriage!

[MinuteGal]

Sen. Frist is perfectly safe in saying he supports a constitutional amendment because it's an event that will never happen. His rhetoric sounds good to despairing conservatives, however.

The senator should more realistically concentrate on breaking the liberals' judicial appointments roadblock but this looks like it isn't going to happen either. He's too much a dainty man at a time we need terminators in the Senate Republican leadership.

Leni

[Mr. Mojo]

How can this possibly be a losing issue for republicans? Force the dim presidential candidates to take a stand that 75% of Americans support.

Bullseye.

I just hope the Administration sees it that way.

[PhiKapMom]

I am praying!

You are so right -- needs to be pushed as the pro-traditional marriage!

[Antoninus]

Note: Watch out for the big talkers with big wallets.

Really, that's all the homo-promo types have is a huge amount of money to spread their propaganda. However, this "sodomy rights" decision might bring some really big money into play that's been on the sidelines for years to support this amendment. We can hope.

But what do I know? I'm just a small talker with a very small wallet. However, if enough of us can get together....

[BikerNYC]

Let's put the cards on the table on which Party is going to stand up for Marriage!

Very true. Be it first, second or third.

[Mr. Mojo]

More ammendments are not the answer. All America needs to do is get conservative, constitutionally loyal people into office.

Oh, is that all? And how successful have we been at doing that?

[mdittmar]

Uh, 30 second education...

Ain't gonna happen.

The Constitution of the United States
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[PhiKapMom]

I am a Bush Republican and have been since 1994 when I lived in Texas and I support Senator Frist in this.

Believe most Republicans will also support it and the religious right will be right there with us. Any conservative should be working to make sure that Gay Marriage is outlawed.

Our RAT Attorney General here in OK said that is going to cause the release of sex offenders and could ultimately lead to overturning pedofilia convictions.

We cannot stand by and do nothing! Time to draw the line in the sand!

[jackbill]

Oh, I don't know. Look at the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law .... Sounds about as clear as you can get, but...

I said "in language that even they can't ignore".

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.

That should do it.

[PhiKapMom]

Bet you will get the Southern Baptist Convention to open their wallets and there are some big bucks there!

[Always Right]

Did he think that people being gay were personal decisions or were they "just born that way." He agreed they were born that way.

Here all along I thought people were born of free will....it's a dangerous path to start to blame genetics for every deviant behavior there is, besides it just ain't so.

[The Red Zone]

We aren't calling for a mere "law," but a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment becomes part of the Constitution and CAN NOT be overturned by the Supreme Court. In fact, they are bound to defend it.

However, we've seen what they can do with a clause they want to find in the Constitution. Such as the cancerous commerce clause gripping its slimy tentacles around anything with the remotest touch upon commerce between the states, or the "right to privacy" in Roe v. Wade and now in Lawrence. Or what they can do with clauses they don't like, such as the "shall not be infringed" of the 2nd Amendment. How do we know that this Frist Amendment won't be greeted with SCOTUS eyes that read it with the implied modifier "only on alternate Wednesdays"?

[mrobison]

You ARE Always Right.

Neal A. Maxwell said: "No one was foreordained to fail or to be wicked."

[Antoninus]

I am ready to go gather signatures here in OK tomorrow if necessary!

I'm with you! And check this out:

Alliance for Marriage

You'll notice that the folks on the home page are Black. Is there an issue more tailor-made for the GOP to unite with Black voters over? This could be HUGE! (or even hugh).

Are there any other "Marriage Amendment" efforts out there? We need to unite behind one of them and not dilute the field.