[DoughtyOne]

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.

[af_vet_1981]

He should rather call for someone to submit articles of impeachment against the six unrighteous judges who are misleading the Republic.

[Sonny M]

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).

[Dan from Michigan]

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.

[dead]

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

[Grut]

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.

[Van Jenerette]

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... �

[Non-Sequitur]

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?

[Gritty]

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.

[RJCogburn]

Political posturing....reminding me of the flag burning amendment.

[litany_of_lies]

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.

[Rebellans]

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.

[Torie]

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.

[mugler]

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.

[taxcontrol]

Using phrases like "marriage is a sacrament" is the wrong approach in my opinion. It is sure to raise the ire of a number of anti religion groups and will make any constitutional amendments a tougher fight.

[Jim Noble]

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."

How many sacraments should the Constitution recognize?

[Dubya]

Good for FRist.

[kms61]

Wow. it's good to know our Congress is on top of THE most pressing threat to the survival or our nation

HUGE /sarcasm tag

[tortoise]

The Constitution exists to limit governments, not individuals -- this is a stupid idea. You don't write laws with the Constitution.

Never mind that they have far bigger skeletons and messes in the Congressional closet than this issue. They need to stop wasting their time on this crap and do something about the state of the Federal government. They can start by reducing it to a quarter of its size.

[BibChr]

Whew? I thought the title said he opposed it!

Dan