Frist Endorses Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage

I think Grant was a Republican, too. The lousy drunk.

 

i think most people who vote republican are not nearly as evil as you all would like to make them out to be.

 

One of the few things that gives me hope for the future is when the Republicans start overreaching on high profile, low reward stuff like this and show what kind of people are driving the party's agenda.

It probably won't help beat bush, but keep it up guys!

 

Sen. Bill Frist R-Tenn. said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned.
"And I'm thinking of — whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home — ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."
(So what is he up to in the privacy of his home???)

Johnheath:
Shows his true colors? Are you insinuating that Frist somehow kept this opinion hidden (that’s not all ), despite the fact that the majority of Americans probably support him?
We may be on to something here.
Nude photos of Newt Gringrich may solve this problem.
(Always the easy answer to the complex problem)

Trader_Jorge:
johnheath is 100% correct on this issue. Marriage has a definition -- the union of a man and a woman. Using that definition, I cannot get "married" if I go out and saw vows to a dog. Similarly, I cannot get married to a cow or a lamp or a window.
(That’s Deep)

While the lunatic fringe liberals attempt to portray a situation in which Frist's view are extremist, I'd wager to guess that the split is about 50/50 for his proposal. He certainly represents his conservative constituency when he stands up for what he believes in on this issue. I commend him for doing so in the face of criticism. That is courage.

Thou doth protest too much.
Do your Log Cabin(s) have closets? If so its time for you guys to come on out—you two are obviously deeply in love with each other.

 

timing --

i may be wrong, but i think it's a federal issue because marriages are typically recognized from state to state. my wife and i were married in arkansas (insert punch line here), but our marriage is recognized in texas with full faith and credit. just my guess for why this is different than a criminal sodomy statute.

also, this issue of marriage is a much more contentious issue than punishing two consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes...much more of a battle...i think it draws more of an emotional response.

 

Marriage is not a federal issue. However the federal government wants to tax it is a federal issue, but so what?

Example: State taxes affect federal income tax too, as they are deductible. However, the Federal government cannot say "California, your state taxes are too high, you must lower them cause it hurts our revenue" and pass a law lowering California's state income taxes, etc.

THe very fact that a Constitutional Amendment is seemingly required indicates that it is not a federal issue. They need one to make it one.

 

But if a brother and sister are infertile (perhaps due to previous inbreeding), then should it be legal for them to marry? They aren't bothering anyone.....

I have struggled with this issue a lot, and still do not have any firm opinion one way or the other. Some questions I often trip myself over include:

What is (or should be) the legal definition of marriage?

If gay marriages are allowed, how much abuse would there be? (say, hetero roomates trying to get health care for one another)

If gay marriages are allowed, why not polygamy? Monogamy seems to be based in Judeo-Christian moral beliefs just as much as heterosexuality is... (IMHO)

Would the addition of gay marriage force the loss of benefits to some hetero- married couples by some companies? (I don't think this is a valid argument against gay marriages per se, but it is a societal impact that I consider)

Is there some sort of compromise that could work, like legal marriage for heteros and legally recognized partnerships for gays? (I have not been able to think of one that does not violate equal protection)

What are the reasons some oppose gay marriage, especially the most vocal ones? (maintain office, bigotry, religious, moral, etc.)

How does gay marriage 'fit in' with my religious beliefs? Can my religious and legislative beliefs lie in juxtaposition (like they do just fine for premarital sex)?


I welcome any reasonable arguments to convince me one way or the other. I would really like to have a firm, logical footing to stand on about this issue, but I have not yet been able to find that.

 

How can you say that marriage is not a federal issue? You have to file federal taxes and you can file a form of tax reporting which indicates that you are married and filing jointly. Regardless of whether you pay more or less tax, it is a factor.

An amendment is being considered because as great a document as The Constitution is, it couldn't forsee everything coming down the pike. We have quite a few Amendments you know!

 

they don't say "by the power vested in me by the United States of America..." In Mississippi you have to get parental consent if under 21, Nebraska 19, Texas 18. So it is a state regulated matter.

You know this issue never really mattered to me much since I was and remain forever single. But after being to 3 weddings already this year and being in another one in November, I just don't think it's fair that the government tells me that this is something I can not do if I chose to.

Trader, Max and johnheath, you keep saying it's already defined but give no justification for wanting to keep the status quo. So again I ask: what negative results would occur if the government allowed gays and lesbians to marry?

 

In a legal sense, it is not a federal issue. There are no federal laws on marriage currently because therre is nothing in the constitution that says congress can. Even a tenuous connection to the commerce clause cannot really be made.

Don't get hung up on the tax connection. It may affect how much tax you pay, but like I said, so do plenty of things that are not federal issues. To take another example, you get exemptions and deductions depending on how many children you have. So can congress pass a law declaring that you can only have two children because it will hurt tax revenues? of course not. This is the exact same.

 

Max,

I think some of our liberals here are actually writers for "The Simpsons" , so I wouldn't let it get to me.

 

i've never said that, outlaw. i'm not arguing this issue at all. or at least i haven't yet.

 

Too... much... personal information...

Seriously, what a great idea Senator Fisting advocates here: ammending the constitution to intentionally restrict the pursuit of happiness of certain peoples. I guess the silver lining is that it opens all sorts of new ammendments.

* A consitutional ban on white people dancing.
* A " ban on asian people driving.
* A " ban on men staying home with a child.
* A " ban on women working.
* A " ban on black people riding in the front of the bus.
* A " ban on Down's syndrome patients posting about Rockets' trade scenarios or political topics (hmmmm...)

Sorry everyone, but it is that stupid.

What I love most of all is the "definition" argument. We owe the authors of said argument sincere thanks for giving us a new definition of "insipid" and providing another spoonful to the overwhelming pile of evidence illustrating that definitions change over time.

 

just because congress can't make a law doesn't mean there's not a federal issue to it, sam.

the federal issue, as i see it, stems from full faith and credit. a marriage in any other state in the union is recognized in texas...and vice versa...tie this in to married couples being forced to move to keep jobs and i guarantee you someone can make a commerce clause argument (that it affects interstate commerce)..believe me, that would be far less tenuous a tie to interstate commerce than some of the other decisions I read in law school!

but here's another question...does it have to be a federal issue to get a constitutional amendment. i'm not arguing for Frist, here...not at all. i'm just saying,this might not be the strongest line of reasoning in arguing against this amendment. the rights of citizens to vote is in the 19th amendment...yet we all acknowledge that most election law is state-specific.

finally, what is state and what is federal has been significantly blurred. honestly, you have liberals to thank for that. that's just the plain and simple truth. family law has always been very state specific...but more recently there have been federal models followed...and federal legislation regarding collection of child support across state borders, etc. so this is not an area that is completely untouched by the federal government.

but you're the first liberal I've ever seen make the following argument: There are no federal laws on marriage currently because therre is nothing in the constitution that says congress can.

congratulations...we'll have a formal induction service to the Federalist Society for you sometime later!

 

Don't worry, I was a federalist (along with every other democrat) for about 2 months when Bush v. Gore was going on too! \

I think your full faith and credit argument is shady because it can be extended to just about everything under the sun that a state can regulate, making everything into a federal issue.

I agree that a convoluted commerce clause argument could be made, but in practice it would break down. Marriage certainly can be connected to interstate commerce in some, way, but gay marriage specifically? I don't know about that. The only real connection you could make would be the taxation one, but like I said before, everything can be made to connect to taxation.

However, like I said, evidently Frist, et al, for whatever reason, view regulation of marriage as not currently being within the legislative sphere, thus they want the amendment.

Does it have to be a federal issue to get a constitutional amendment? No, I would guess not; I think with constitutional amendments anything is fair game, you're changing the rules, so the rules don't really apply, you know?

 

just because you share that extremist view doesn't mean most other people do.

and that analogy you used is absolutely absurd. we're talking about people. quit trying to spin this issue to fit your ultra-conservative views. just because something threatens Christian morals, doesn't mean it should be outlawed; that goes against everything the Constitution is supposed to protect.

and let me guess - Frist is courageous just like Strom, right? your definition of "courage" probably reads like this: Republican.

Welcome to 2003 T_J......

 

So gay marraiges are unfeasible because of tax codes? C'mon.

This issue isn't about "being gay." It's about a person's right to happiness free of government intrusion. Nobody is getting hurt here -- it's something between two consenting adults. The government should not legislate morality, be it based in so-called Judeo-Christian "values" or otherwise.

 

Punk....

I am not going to get into the specifics of the amendment proposition. The question of homosexual marriages in general is what I'm trying to figure out. I don't think the possibility of those laws is necessarily a stupid issue because the law does put restrictions on it (being of age, no family connections, polygamy). Do you think that polygamy should be allowed? If you say "No, because it's between TWO people" then what's the difference in having people defining it as between two people and defining it as between a man and a woman?

 

Well the reason I got married has nothing to do with procreation. It has to do with my wife and I loving each other. Call it a modern marriage, but my wife and I married for love. It wasn't for children, or an arranged marriage, it was just for love.

I would hope that if two other people(2 men, 2 women one of each), want to get married they should be allowed to do so. Equal rights under the law includes the right to get married.